The problem is dependency hell caused by people who put Requires in their spec files that assume packagers are going to do things a certain way. Sometimes the major version of a library will be different than the package version, particularly if the shared library is just a component of the package. That can be solved with a provides though - as in For example if Foobar 4.8 contains foolib.so.3.5 you could put: Provides: foolib = 3.5 and that will help satisfy dependencies for other rpms that assume the library will be spit as a sub package from the main package. However, imho a better solution is to let rpm do what it was coded to do - figure out shared library provides and dependencies with the AutoReqProv functions it has. That's imho much better On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 19:24, Toshio wrote: > I ran rpmlint on the qof library package I just made and had it tell me: > > qof-0.5.0: > E: qof incoherent-version-in-name 0.5.0 > The package name should contain the major version of the library. > > qof-devel-0.5.0: > W: qof-devel no-major-in-name qof-devel > The major number of the library isn't contained in the package name. > > What do people think? Is it good practice to include the major number > in the name of the package (qof0-0.5.0 similar to gtkhtml3 and db4) or > is this just rpmlint being overzealous? > > -Toshio -- Cheap Linux CD's - http://mpeters.us/linux/
