On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:14:25AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 10:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >On 10/22/2012 03:47 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >>commit e00f8293097f8331883f1df35f74be70fbb290b9
> >>Author: Petr Písař <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Date: Mon Oct 22 15:46:27 2012 +0200
> >>
> >> Work-aroung missing libecb package on build-triggering host
> >>
> >> perl-Coro.spec | 2 +-
> >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>---
> >>diff --git a/perl-Coro.spec b/perl-Coro.spec
> >>index 50a855d..31589a5 100644
> >>--- a/perl-Coro.spec
> >>+++ b/perl-Coro.spec
> >>@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Requires: perl(EV) >= 3
> >> Requires: perl(Event) >= 1.08
> >> Requires: perl(Guard) >= 0.5
> >> Requires: perl(Storable) >= 2.15
> >>-Provides: bundled(libecb) = %(rpm -q libecb --qf '%{VERSION}')
> >>+Provides: bundled(libecb)%(rpm -q libecb --qf ' = %{VERSION}'
> >>2>/dev/null)
> >
> >I could be wrong, but IIRC, calling rpm inside of rpm specs is not
> >allowed in Fedora.
> >
> >Apart of this, what you are doing is rendering your built
> >non-deterministic - Another "strictly forbidden" item.
>
> Agreed. What you're trying to say essentially is that the bundled
> libecb version matches the system/non-bundled version, which really
> doesn't make any sense. I'd suggest you simply remove the
> versioning (or list the real bundled version some other way).
>
This is something like static library. Thus code gets frozen into the package
at build-time. So I concluded it's good idea to know which version of the
library the binary package incorporates.
However if you think this is bad idea I will remove it.
-- Petr
Attachment:
pgpm8P3n3ldF6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
