On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 19:55 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote: > Mike A. Harris <mharris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Gianluca Sforna wrote: > > > On 7/10/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On Monday 10 July 2006 05:19, Gianluca Sforna wrote: > > >> > So, for example, right now I need to add a BR for the file > > >> > /usr/include/X11/StringDefs.h > > >> > > > >> > what BR: line should I use? > > >> > > >> Whats wrong with BR'ing the file? > > > Well, that's just what I've done and it seems to work; adding that > > > pushed in the correct package in both FC4 and FC5. > > > I imagine there could be problems only if in the future the other > > > required files (I don't think that was the only needed include file) > > > will be found in another package. > > > Thanks a lot > > > For the specific case you've given above, buildrequiring the > > file explicitly is definitely wrong. If you do not already > > know which package owns a header file, you should find the file, > > then query rpm to find out which -devel package provides the > > file, and depend on that package. > > OK, but is there a way to find out what (virtual) stuff that RPM provides? > That would be the most future-proof way of handling this. $ rpm -qp --provides /path/to/rpm Paul. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
