On 19. 02. 19 2:26, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:31 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Would there be some way to opt out of this? In some cases, %{name}-devel Requires only %{name}-libs and not %{name}.Perhaps it's not obvious, but the idea here is that RPM will "sense" what the name of the subpackage it depends on is, and generate the correct strict dependency automatically. For example, foo, foo-libs, libfoobaz, and foo-devel exist, built from foo.spec. foo-devel requires libfoobaz.so.1 (provided by libfoobaz) and libfoo.so.0 (provided by foo-libs). Currently, rpm generates the "libfoobaz.so.1()(64bit)" and "libfoo.so.0()(64bit)" dependencies and leaves the rest to you. This will change the behavior so that when it identifies that a subpackage produced from the spec contains that dependency, it'll be replaced with a strictly versioned dep on the subpackage. So instead of "libfoo.so.0()(64bit)", it'll be "foo-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}". And the "libfoobaz.so.1()(64bit)" dependency would be replaced with "libfoobaz%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}". If there's no requires that matches with a provides in another subpackage that's built from the spec, rpm would not do anything, and it'll be exactly as it is now. This is merely about optimizing requires across subpackages from the same source package.
Thank You, now it makes sense! This needs to be said in the change proposal. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
