On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Caolan McNamara wrote, at 12/03/2008 10:44 PM +9:00:Author: caolanm Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/libxml2/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv9711 Modified Files: libxml2.spec Log Message: rebuild to get provides(libxml-2.0) into HEAD rawhide Index: libxml2.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/libxml2/devel/libxml2.spec,v retrieving revision 1.65 retrieving revision 1.66 diff -u -r1.65 -r1.66 --- libxml2.spec 1 Dec 2008 23:42:58 -0000 1.65 +++ libxml2.spec 3 Dec 2008 13:43:49 -0000 1.66 @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Summary: Library providing XML and HTML support Name: libxml2 Version: 2.7.2 -Release: 4%{?dist}%{?extra_release} +Release: 5%{?dist}%{?extra_release} License: MIT Group: Development/Libraries Source: ftp://xmlsoft.org/libxml2/libxml2-%{version}.tar.gz @@ -145,6 +145,9 @@ %doc doc/python.html %changelog +* Wed Dec 3 2008 Caol??????n McNamara <caolanm@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2.7.2-5 +- rebuild to get provides(libxml-2.0) into HEAD rawhide +Again this causes no effect until bug 473978 is solved. See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-December/msg00124.html
Well the question is, should rpm-build require everything it can extract dependencies from? That would drag in mono and whatnot... and rpm-build itself certainly does not require pkg-config to function.
Adding dependency on pkgconfig is no big deal, but the line between what should go to rpm-build dependencies and what to buildsys groups is rather fuzzy.
- Panu - -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
