Overview
Request 461788 superseded
- Created by jmoellers
- In state superseded
- Superseded by 508558
- Open review for openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:291
Request History
jmoellers created request
licensedigger accepted review
ok
rmax accepted review
ok
factory-auto added opensuse-review-team as a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto added factory-repo-checker as a reviewer
Please review build success
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
maxlin_factory added as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:291"
maxlin_factory accepted review
Picked openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:291
factory-repo-checker accepted review
Builds for repo science:HPC/openSUSE_Tumbleweed
dimstar accepted review
jengelh declined review
Why is this explicitly requiring libexpat1, libibumad5, libibverbs1? That's autodetected.
The main subpackage group should also not be System/Libraries; use Development/Libraries/C and C++.
ldconfig on the devel package? That smells like you need to implement the shlib guideline
and split out libopasadb1.
jengelh declined request
Why is this explicitly requiring libexpat1, libibumad5, libibverbs1? That's autodetected.
The main subpackage group should also not be System/Libraries; use Development/Libraries/C and C++.
ldconfig on the devel package? That smells like you need to implement the shlib guideline
and split out libopasadb1.
NMoreyChaisemartin superseded request
superseded by 508558
+AutoReq: no
Is this code REALLY that bad?
I kept the original spec file from the previous version and just modified those parts that have changed due to the update to the new version, so whatever is bad must have been bad before. Having said that ... I will fix the things Jan complained about, if it makes the product better.
All packages new to Factory get the same treatment irrespective of history at another place.