On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:45:47 -0600 (CST), Rex Dieter wrote: > >> If i understand the argument that people are making... is that doing > >> it this way... is a burden on 3rd party packagers who have to try to > >> predict when and if Core is going to introduce a libname[Version] for > >> previous versions. > > > > Whenever that happens - when a Core package is renamed like this - the 3rd > > party packagers need to update their spec files to make them buildrequire > > libname[Version]-devel instead. > > I thought the proposal included that each package include > Provides: libname = %version > or was that also determined to be problematic? Unfortunately, that's a rather short example. Can you extend that a bit, please, or point me to the full-blown proposal? What is %version here? The same old version as we know it? How exactly does it look like in a library package, it's -devel counterpart and a spec file which buildrequires this thing? So far, we've had "Buildrequires: taglib-devel"? What would it look like instead?
