On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 13:54 -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > Thanks, OK great. It would be helpful if you could provide a proposed > .src.rpm replacement for download and peer review to this list in a way > similar to an Extras package review request. That way folks here can > test it and suggest other improvements while we follow the process for > replacement in Fedora Core. > > I suppose we want both Obsoletes and Provides of the N-V-R of libungif > and also matching -devel? Here's a spec file for giflib that doesn't quite work. It's a port of the libungif spec file with a few cleanups similar to what we'd do if the package was moving to Fedora Extras. The not quite working portion is the virtual Provides. I think I'm running squarely into the issues exposed here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00133.html and explained in this post: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00175.html Should I try something like: %ifarch x86_64 Provides: libungif.so.4()((64bit) %else Provides: libungif.so.4 %endif or is that too much of a hack? Are there other archs (ppc64?) that need to be %ifarch'd? -Toshio
Attachment:
giflib.spec
Description: application/extension-spec
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
