Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:51:40 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Alternatively, the question is "Why do these packages need
libpython24.so.1.0 and is that proper?"
With BR python-devel and a file /usr/lib/k3d/libk3dpython.so.* that
looks very much like it's a k3d plugin for Python scripting support.
Well, in my case (plplot), plplot-devel provides:
/usr/lib/libcsirocsa.so
/usr/lib/libcsironn.so
/usr/lib/libplplotcxxd.so
/usr/lib/libplplotd.so
/usr/lib/libplplotf77cd.so
/usr/lib/libplplotf77d.so
/usr/lib/libplplotf95cd.so
/usr/lib/libplplotf95d.so
None of which require libpython2.4.so.1.0. However plplot-devel does
require plplot, which also provides:
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_plplotcmodule.so
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/plplot_widgetmodule.so
which do require it. So in this case it seems like the thing to do
might be to move the first libraries into plplot-libs, and have
plplot-devel require that, not plplot, much like you pointed out with k3d.
So the answer to the above question may be, "No, it's not proper. Fix
your packages so the -devel packages don't require libpython2.4.so.1.0".
--
Orion Poplawski
System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
