On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 22:17 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > As per the FESCO meeting item list, and irc discussion, here is my > humble attempt to identify via repoquery what packages are currently > prone to library dependancy breakage without being noticed by the > automated scripts which just look for rpm autogenerated library > dependancies. > > these are packages which have a requirement on a library from firefox, > but do not explicitly require firefox or gecko-libs: > > epiphany-extensions-0:2.16.1-1.i386 > gnome-chemistry-utils-mozplugin-0:0.6.3-4.fc6.i386 > openvrml-gtkplug-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386 > openvrml-mozilla-plugin-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386 > > If you just look at packages which do not use a versioned firefox dep > you also get: > > devhelp-0:0.12-9.fc6.i386 > epiphany-0:2.16.2-1.fc6.i386 > galeon-0:2.0.3-4.fc6.1.i386 > gtkmozembedmm-0:1.4.2.cvs20060817-7.fc6.i386 > libswt3-gtk2-1:3.2.1-23.fc6.i386 > openvrml-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386 > yelp-0:2.16.0-11.fc6.i386 > > > The only packages which use a versioned firefox requirements are: > > gnome-python2-gtkmozembed-0:2.14.2-6.fc6.i386 > liferea-0:1.0.26-2.fc6.i386 Hmm? # rpm -q --requires openvrml | grep firefox firefox = 1.5.0.9 > My suggestion is that all packages which end up requiring a library > from firefox should use a versioned dependancy as long as firefox > continues to keep its libraries in a versioned directory tree ( > currently /usr/lib/firefox-1.5.0.9/ ). ACK. > Comments? Should I start filing bugs against these packages to get > versioned firefox requires added to their specfiles ? Probably. It actually depends on what a package needs a versioned firefox dep for. In some cases, it's a library search path (Some packages use firefox libs as system libraries, but they are out of ld.so's search path, some explicitly dlopen them), in some cases it's a directory name, in some cases it's a particular version of a firefox library (Firefox libs lack proper SONAMES and properly versioned API). > Should we look at making this sort of thing part of the review process > that should be checked for? Yes, .. better have firefox fixed. IMO it's "plain broken". Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
