On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:27:04 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 2/22/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> wrote: > > I don't think there's a need for such a special case. Packages simply > > must not provide things they don't really intend to "export". > > well yes... they shouldn't do that... but I'm asking how do we do a > better job of checking for that...especially when rpmbuild's > automagical provides calculator notices something and makes it a > provides when you did not explicitly ask it to be? If building binary > packages and checking its provides list isn't a hard review > requirement for pre-submission reviews... how else can we do a better > job of catching this sort of thing? Examine binary packages ( rpm -qp --provides foo.i386.rpm ) and ask yourself "Do you like what you see? Did you expect the package to provide a Perl module?". It's something the packagers should do anyway before they decide whether any explicit "Provides" are needed. > And how do we do a better job of making sure that if it happens it > doesn't bite us in the buildsystem itself? First let's wait how often it will happen again. ;) -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
