On 16/07/21 10:39 pm, Simon Matter wrote:
And I ask again, how else would you expect the package to satisfy the
dependency in chrome for the newer libstdc++?
And yet you still have not answered this question.
And that's where it breaks the rules! It "provides" something that it
doesn't really provide. That's NOT allowed with RPM because it breaks
other applications. It breaks the whole meaning of dependency tracking of
the RPM system. That's why the mentioned chrome package has to be
considered broken.
It is not broken, it does exactly what it intends to do. It needs to
provide the dependency in order to allow chrome to be installed, and
with the usage of the correct LD_LIBRARY_PATH it allows chrome to run on
the system where otherwise it would not.
Yes, it violates the Fedora packaging guidelines, it's a good thing it's
not a Fedora package, then. Also please note the very first sentence on
the main page of the guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
"The Packaging Guidelines are a collection of common issues and the
severity that should be placed on them. While these guidelines should
not be ignored, they should also not be blindly followed."
Sometimes you have to break some rules to get things to work. In this
particular case the results are worth it for a great many people.
Peter
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
