Bug 239233

Summary: Review Request: compat-vips - compatibility version of VIPS
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Adam Goode <adam>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhide   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-06-28 02:09:00 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Adam Goode 2007-05-06 16:54:32 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/compat-vips.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/compat-vips-7.10.21-1.fc7.src.rpm
Description: Compatibility version of VIPS. New upstream release of VIPS has new so version.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2007-06-28 02:05:55 UTC
Is a compat-vips package really necessary.  Every package I see that requires
either of the libraries provided by the vips package seems to have exactly the
same version string:


BTW, I note the following from rpmlint:
W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5
W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5
W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5
W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5
These are generally just inefficiencies, but libWand is 800K, which is a bit
large for an unused library dependency.

Comment 2 Adam Goode 2007-06-28 02:09:00 UTC
Ah, ok. Good to know this isn't necessary. I was thinking this package was only
needed for F7, but with F8 coming out so soon, I'll drop it.

Also, I'll look into the dependences. I guess it's just libtool being overzealous?