On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 09:35 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:22:35AM -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 09:11 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > I expect this was just a braino on someone's part, it should have been
> > > Requires not BuildRequires;
> >
> > No, it was deliberate. It's there for the purpose of allowing the
> > package to be built for versions of python other than the primary one,
> > e.g., python-2.4 under FC3. It most likely won't get much use, but who's
> > to say a similar problem won't show up in the future?
>
> I don't see how this makes any sense; the dependency on a particular
> python ABI is a property of a *binary* package, not a source package. If
> you have a package which only builds with python >= 2.4 (is that what
> you're saying?), surely it should just BR: python >= 2.4 or similar?
Look at these lines in python-amara.spec:
%build
%{__python}%{pyver} setup.py build
This requires /usr/bin/python%{pyver}, which is contained in the same
package that provides python-abi = %{pyver}. Since mach would have the
same issue looking for /usr/bin/python%{pyver}, the exact form of the
BuildRequires is unimportant.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://fedora.ivazquez.net/
gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
