Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526426 --- Comment #16 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-02 04:19:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > Requiring libGL-devel versus mesa-libGL-devel is fine by me. But why does > libgle-devel explicitly require libGL-devel? gle.h doesn't include any other > include files. Correct, but ... the situation actually is more difficult: # nm -D --undefined /usr/lib64/libgle.so w _Jv_RegisterClasses U __cxa_atexit w __cxa_finalize U __fprintf_chk w __gmon_start__ U acos U atan2 U free U glBegin U glColor3fv U glColor4fv U glEnd U glIsEnabled U glMultMatrixd U glNormal3dv U glPopMatrix U glPushMatrix U glTexCoord2d U glVertex3dv U gluBeginPolygon U gluDeleteTess U gluEndPolygon U gluNewTess U gluTessCallback U gluTessVertex U malloc U realloc U sincos U sqrt U stderr => There are hidden deps on libGL and libGLU. I am not sure (yet) how to handle this. A couple of real world use cases of libgle would easily clearify the issue. > My gle-devel package required xorg-x11-proto-devel and did not own the > /usr/include/GL directory, but I think having libgle-devel own /usr/include/GL > is better. That's a different (unresolved) problem: Ownership of the /usr/include/GL. In general, the current rule is: If package A depends on another package B which provides a directory, package A wants to install files into, then it is sufficient for package A to "R: B". If package A does not depend upon package B, then package B must own this directory (The directory would be owned by both A and B, then). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review