On 4/18/07, Christopher Stone <chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/18/07, Peter Gordon <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 19:59 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > In that case can gnumeric please be blacklisted, and the i386 version removed > > from the x86_64 repo? > > > > Thanks & regards, > > > > Hans > > Unfortunately, it's not that simple - gnumeric-devel is a proper > subpackage of gnumeric, and as a good -devel subpackage, it properly > requires its base package - which means you'll have gnumeric installed > twice in a multilib setup, for each of these two arches. > > A potential way to ease this is to split out a -libs subpackage which > contains the shared libraries (which are the things a -devel package > really needs), then make both the base package and the -devel subpackage > depend on it via a fully-versioned Requires tag. (See, for example, my > recent split of the openbox packaging.) > > Then, gnumeric and gnumeric-devel would depend on gnumeric-libs, but you > would have only one instance of gnumeric installed (for the parent > arch). > > Hope that helps. Hans does this sound good to you? My pygame package has the same fate and so far the best solution presented to me was to just remove the devel package and bundle everything in a single package (because no one ever uses pygame-devel presumably). This sounds like a better solution to me however.
Well I dug up the thread on pygame, I guess Michael is correct in my case[1], which reminds me I still need to fix up some dependencies for Fedora 7 on that package... [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-December/msg00247.html -- 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
