Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
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
This issue I will wait for Jeremy to decide what to do. Two other
issues in your spec:
Obsoletes: libungif <= %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libungif <= %{version}-%{release}
Wouldn't the new spec make more sense like this, then start Release: at
4.fc5? This way folks could rebuild this .src.rpm and unambiguously use
it on older dists for personal testing and have no problem upgrading in
the future to the FC5 version.
Have you tested a build without the explicit "Provides: libungif.so.4"?
What does the autoprovide do in that case?
Warren Togami
wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
