On 1/5/07, Christopher Aillon <caillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Having said that, every package in Core which needs to has always had an explicit versioned requires (except for the packages in FC6 GOLD which was an unfortunate regression, but long since fixed). See the latest epiphany/devhelp/yelp RPMs for how to do the dependencies (I'm not sure how they got in your list of non-versioned deps unless you looked at FC6 GOLD).
I ran multiple runs of repoquery with fc6,updates,updates-testing, and extras enabled. Please read my message again. The first group of packages are the packages that do not have a dep on firefox nor gecko-libs and that netted only 4 packages from Extras as ones with a potential issue. In total there are 13 packages that my repoquery runs showed depend on libraries from firefox. Since the number is so thankfully small, its no big deal to follow up and add versioned requirments on a case by case basis. And I have to stress to everyone that this was a first attempt to just identify the space of affected packages. repoquery definitely did not catch everything, and I probably fat-fingered some of my hand editting of the repoquery output. Since repoquery outputs all packages that match... not just the 'newest'... i cleaned up the output a bit and probably made a opps. I'm much more concerned about packages that are using the firefox libs but I can't see via the rpm deps at all. I can't think of a way to check for that without installing all of fedora-space on a system and doing a brute-force run of ldd looking for libxpcom for example. And I don't think we ever really fixed how readahead works to account for firefox's versioned directory. -jef -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
