[Bug 239233] Review Request: compat-vips - compatibility version of VIPS

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: compat-vips - compatibility version of VIPS


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239233


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-06-27 22:05 EST -------
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:

vips-devel-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386
vips-tools-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386
vips-python-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386
nip2-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386
vips-0:7.12.0-1.fc8.i386

BTW, I note the following from rpmlint:
W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5
/usr/lib64/libWand.so.10
W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5
/lib64/libz.so.1
W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5
/lib64/librt.so.1
W: compat-vips unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvips.so.10.8.5
/lib64/libdl.so.2
These are generally just inefficiencies, but libWand is 800K, which is a bit
large for an unused library dependency.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.