On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Caolán McNamara <caolanm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As others have mentioned, we run into this with Perl arch-specific packages quite a bit; it's hardly unique to Perl, however. I have a packaging guideline up before the FPC as to how to handle these in a sane, consistent manner:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
Ville was kind enough to cite this guideline's alternate incarnation as a feature, as well as the thread over on the packaging list about all this (citing here just for completeness):
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.extras.packaging/5854
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterRpmAutoReqProvFiltering
I'd hoped this would be discussed again at yesterdays FPC meeting, but there didn't seem to be one... (Right?)
-Chris
-- So, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502226 was logged a
while ago against OOo for the rpms "improperly" providing and
requiring .sos that are not in the linker path, but instead in OOo's own
subdirs.
As others have mentioned, we run into this with Perl arch-specific packages quite a bit; it's hardly unique to Perl, however. I have a packaging guideline up before the FPC as to how to handle these in a sane, consistent manner:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
Ville was kind enough to cite this guideline's alternate incarnation as a feature, as well as the thread over on the packaging list about all this (citing here just for completeness):
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.extras.packaging/5854
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterRpmAutoReqProvFiltering
I'd hoped this would be discussed again at yesterdays FPC meeting, but there didn't seem to be one... (Right?)
-Chris
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
