On 02/21/2011 08:14 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Gordon Messmer<yinyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 02/20/2011 10:04 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>>> I was googling for a way to figure out a dependency chain for a
>>> package I'm trying to flush out a spec file for and build.
>>
>> Spec files don't normally require the entire chain to be listed. What
>> problem are you trying to solve that isn't solved by listing the
>> "immediate" build or runtime requirements?
>
> I was just tying to not be redundant. For instance, the package relies
> on mlt and mlt-python. I don't have to include mlt because mlt-python
> already requires it.
You should include in your dependencies all the things you directly
require and not worry about redundancy. You should not assume that
you don't need to require Package-B because you also require
Package-A, and Package-A requires Package-B. Those dependencies
can change. Let's say that one day Package-B gets split into
Package-B and Package-B-libs, and Package-A now just requires
Package-B-libs. If your actual need is for Package-B, you would
get a run-time failure if Package-B was not installed.
--
Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address.
Do NOT delete it.
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
