On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:19:49 +0100, DH (David) wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a package (keyutils) that produces three RPMs: keyutils (programs), > keyutils-libs and keyutils-devel. The programs in the keyutils RPM depend on > the libraries in the keyutils-libs RPM and pick up implicit dependencies thus: > > warthog>rpm -qRp keyutils-1.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm > ... > config(keyutils) = 1.5.1-1.fc14 > ... > libkeyutils.so.1()(64bit) > libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_0.3)(64bit) > libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_1.0)(64bit) > libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_1.3)(64bit) > libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_1.4)(64bit) > ... > > So does the keyutils rpm need an explicit Requires on the keyutils-libs rpm in > the specfile or is the implicit library dependency sufficient? > > rpmlint does not complain, but, for RHEL, rpmdiff does. > > David It's a grey area. Basically, it boils down to these two guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage under consideration of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires In your case, the -libs package is the real base package in disguise. The executables in the "keyutils" pkg may need the latest libkeyutils.so.1 API, or else they would fail to link at run-time. [...] Occasionally, one can observe users running into this pitfall as it is not just a theoretical problem. They read about an update notification for package "foo" and try to apply that update manually with "yum update foo". However, due to weak dependencies (or not dependencies) on subpackages containing important stuff, such as the latest version-release of a "foo-libs" subpackage, the applied update is only a partial one -- and not even a "yum update foo\*" might have helped, because some subpackage names are within a different prefix. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
