Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:23:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Michael Schwendt wrote: >> >> > Why does the -libs package require these tools? >> > The .spec doesn't answer that question. >> > >> > In the other direction, there's a hardcoded strict dependency in >> > addition to the automatic soname deps, creating a circle: >> > >> > $ rpm -qR OpenEXR|grep EXR >> > OpenEXR-libs = 1.4.0a-5.fc8 >> > >> > Conclusively, the split is useless. >> >> It's cleaner wrt multilib, ie no OpenEXR.i386 in x86_64 repo. >> >> (same goes for jasper). > > You didn't answer the question. Why does the -libs package require the > tools? Do the libraries need the tools?! I addressed the assertion that the split was useless. :) > Just because of the dependency on the main package, optional example > programs are installed and cannot be removed. It's unclear (to me anyway) whether these truly are optional or not, ie, I have yet to determine here (or in the jasper case) whether apps assume the presence tools/binaries. In short, I'm playing it safe, and keeping the same behavior as when there wasn't a -libs split. -- Rex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
