On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:11:36 +0200, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> For a package which ships an alpha/beta/devel version of a library, the actual
> version of the library is encoded in the release tag (according to the
> package guidelines). In this case, shouldn't the "devel" sub-package have:
> Require %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
The majority of -devel packages ought to do this in order to keep the
packages in sync strictly.
> instead of the usual:
> Require %{name} = %{version}
> ?
This is lax packaging. It breaks in several cases and particularly when
the number of patches and changes increase. Most -devel packages include
an API, constants, generated headers, config helper scripts, all possibly
patched, and the result ought to match what's compiled into the main
package. Hence %{release} in the dependency is beneficial. In some cases
you can argue that requiring the major library version is enough, until
you find out that it's not worth the risks.
> I found this problem in a rpmforge package (ffmpeg), but maybe some Fedora
> Extras packages suffer from the same problem, as it is not in the guidelines.
>
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
