On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 05:50 -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > 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. > Made these changes. They make more sense now than when I was thinking about it in the wee morning hours :-) > Have you tested a build without the explicit "Provides: libungif.so.4"? > What does the autoprovide do in that case? $ rpm -qp --provides giflib-4.1.3-1.x86_64.rpm libgif.so.4()(64bit) libungif <= 4.1.3-1 giflib = 4.1.3-1 (Built on an x86_64) > Also is there any good reason why we should continue shipping the > static archive? There's nothing special about giflib in this regard. Is Core converting to "no-static archives"? If so it's fine to remove the static libraries. -Toshio
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
