On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:56:11 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On 12/10/06, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:18:35 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, I did all this. I don't know if the .i386 has to be manually
> > > removed? If anyone wants to give another look/review of the current
> > > spec in devel please be my guest.
> >
> > The changes won't help with multilib since you added
> >
> > Provides: pygame-devel = %{version}-%{release}
> > Provides: python-pygame-devel = %{version}-%{release}
> >
> > which creates *two* virtual -devel packages. This doesn't eliminate
> > pygame-devel.
>
> So how am I supposed to do this?
Well, I've pointed out one solution (i.e. to eliminate the -devel package)
and also said that a pygame-devel could be put onto the multilib
black-list as a last resort.
Whether it is permitted to not "Requires: SDL-devel python-devel" is not
my decision. I think it is too strict of a dependency for this particular
pygame.h header. Any other package, a pygame extension module, could
simply BuildRequires the needed -devel packages. And the other three
headers, well, they come directly from the src directory, including
them is questionable, since they only define an API of semi-public
C libraries located in a Python module path. While theoretically they
could be used from within C code, this installation is half-baked.
Hence keep the packaging simple. The number of Obsoletes and virtual
sub-packages is too much already. That's just my personal opinion.
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
