On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 13:11 -0500, Chip Coldwell wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > Ugh. Is that the rpmlint warning that this is all about? You already
> > have an emacs-common package for files shared between emacs with x and
> > emacs without x. Move the /usr/bin/emacs script into the emacs-common
> > package and have done already.
>
> That leads to a circular dependency. The shell script requires that one
> of the two "emacs" and "emacs-nox" packages be installed. If emacs-common
> requires one of those two, and they each require emacs-common ....
>
I don't believe circular depenencies per se are problems. Certain
instances are. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, here.) In this
case, breaking out the dependency into a virtual provides would be the
standard way to show that emacs-common requires one of /usr/bin/emacs-x
or /usr/bin/emacs-nox.
### Main package is old emacs-common
Requires: binemacs = %{version}-%{release}
%package x
Provides: binemacs = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
%package nox
Provides: binemacs = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
s/binemacs/WhateverVirtualProvideStrikesYourFancy/
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
