On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 08:45:47PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Michael Schwendt 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?
That would be a way, but I would be less intrusive right now. Just use
foo-devel and have foo-devel require libfoo<major>.
I.e. the libfoo<major> package is nowhere explicitly requested outside
the package itself. That way all packages can be refactored in
asynchronous time w/o changing dependencies of other packages.
Example:
old:
foo-1.2.3-4.src.rpm generates foo-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
foo-devel-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
new:
foo-1.2.3-4.src.rpm generates foo-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
libfoo5-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
foo-devel-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpRanuI5DvPG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
