Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library) Alias: bitgtkmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052 ------- Additional Comments From rvinyard@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-29 21:08 EST ------- > No. These are packages required to run. Say I didn't have atkmm on my machine > (just as an example). Without the R atkmm being explictly states in the spec > file, the package would know no better until it gets to a point that atkmm is > needed and then it falls over dead. Check out: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires rpmbuild adds the requires, such as (continuing with the atkmm example): libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit) If you try and install bitgtkmm, rpm will complain that libatkmm-1.6.so.1 is required. If you're using yum, it will look up libatkmm-1.6.so.1 as a library in atkmm and add atkmm to the dependency installs. The situation you ran into with Anjuta was a little different. The reason why you had to explicitly add it was that the Anjuta runtime didn't have a dependency on the gtkmm runtime libraries, so rpmbuild didn't add it to the rpm requires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review