On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 23:02 +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:54:48 -0700 > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > It's certainly not the same libotf, since OpenMPI does not have > > > *anything* to do with truetype fonts. > > > > > > Even though the library is installed in a non-system directory, > > > applications that link against libotf will get an automatically > > > generated Requires: against it anyways. > > > > Well, packages get an auto-generated Requires: for libotf.so.0. > > Anything that claims to provide libotf.so.0 will satisfy this. The > > most correct solution is simply for openmpi to stop claiming to > > provide libotf.so.0 because, for practical purposes, it does not > > provide it: even if the library in question were the same one, > > openmpi's copy is not in a location that other packages will know how > > to use, so in practical terms, it does not provide the library. > > .. but on the other hand, the same logic applies in the opposite sense: > if something requires OpenMPI's libotf.so.0, also the truetype libotf > will satisfy the requirement. (Although openmpi apps typically link to > a half a dozen other openmpi libs as well). Nothing really could require OpenMPI's libotf as things stand, because of what I wrote above: nothing can find it unless it uses a custom linker path. If OpenMPI actually wanted the library to be something other packages can use, it should really install it in a shared path (and, as we've already discussed, rename it). If we're just talking about different OpenMPI packages, they can handle the intra-dependencies manually, I'd say. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
