On Friday 22 June 2007 13:04:22 Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:09:39 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > > > Reviewers ought to examine "Provides" carefully and require packagers > > > to filter the Provides if necessary. > > > > How should I filter these, short of AutoReqProv: 0 ? > > No, that would disable too much. > > > One recipe: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FilteringAutomaticDependencie >s?highlight=%28find_provides%29#head-4c30232b398f85bec95f72bc6bb66b5bbf524be >3 > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FilteringAutomaticDependencie >s > > > Another recipe uses a patch against /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-provides > (the packager needs to create the patch and run "sed" in the right > place to drop sonames): > > %define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 > cp -a /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-provides %{_tmppath}/find-provides.%{name} > patch %{_tmppath}/find-provides.%{name} %{PATCH0} > %define __find_provides %{_tmppath}/find-provides.%{name} The question I have is why can't we teach the provides finder to be smarter about things that are outside the standard path? Why fix this in N* packages instead of the source? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpgBhilb2bO4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
