On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:24:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote, at 04/09/2009 06:52 PM +9:00:
> > On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:06:57 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
> >
> >>> Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
> >>>
> >>> In the main utilities package, is this explicit dependency on the
> >>> library package really needed?
> >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires
> >> I have not checked this spec file in detail. however:
> >>
> >> When I review packages I always request submitters to write
> >> exact EVR specific dependency between packages rebuilt from the
> >> same srpm and I think this is general for Fedora packages.
> >> ref:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Here "libpst" would Requires "libpst-libs" with an explicit version in
> > addition to the automatic SONAME dep, but all other packages that would be
> > linked to libpst would rely on the automatic SONAME dep.
>
> Because
> - As I already said almost all packages do so
> (e.g. rpm -q --requires perl)
> - And you explain the reason by yourself below
> (it is ensured that all packages are updated correctly, and
> distinguishing between developers v.s. non-developers does
> not make sense)
I can only explain the reason for the original guidelines, not the
reason why the additional "should" for non-devel subpackages was added.
> > More and more packagers even let -doc subpackages require the base
> > package, so one cannot install -doc packages anymore without dependency
> > bloat [as the base package often pulls in even further packages].
>
> Um, actually in many cases -doc packages must require the base package
> because of the directory ownership issue for which you often file
> bugs.
That can be fixed in the subpackages with %dir, for example.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
