On Tue, 06 May 2008 00:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I found where the confusion is > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines: > > > SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > > package using a fully versioned dependency. > > > Note its a should and not a must. I think a -libs subpackage is a > > clear counter example that doesn't fall in the 'usual' wording. I > > would daresay that usually, -libs subpackages don;t require the base > > package. > > > Do we really need that SHOULD? Or do we need to expand on it a little? > > Indeed, in my experience the entire POINT of a -libs subpackage is that > it doesn't pull in the whole base package. If it does, why are you > bothering to create a separate libs subpackage? So the review guidelines > are indisputably broken here. The guidelines say SHOULD, not MUST. And I believe that guideline has its origin in the "explicit %epoch era" and is a bit misleading nowadays. The foo-libs case is special, because it simulates a stand-alone libfoo package, which may be used by other programs/packages. A missing dependency between a sub-package and the main package is one source of packaging mistakes. The sub-package *is* optional, but programs [tools, scripts or other files] from the main package often are needed at run-time. This is something to check carefully. And it applies also to add-on packages created from a separate src.rpm. -- Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) - Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8 loadavg: 1.02 1.13 0.73 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
