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=542740 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-12-02 12:30:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Currently f2c does not require f2c-libs, and f2c-libs does not require f2c. > Should I add a requires to force one or the other, so that the license files > will always get installed? > > A similar question for mpqc. The only interpackage dependencies are mpqc-devel > requires mpqc-libs requires mpqc-data. The license files are installed in mpqc, > so if only mpqc-libs is installed, the user has no license files. What is the > general approach to such packages with multiple mostly independent subpackages. > It seems there are only three choices. Force an artifical dependency on the > subpackage that contains the license files, install multiple copies of the > license files in each independent subpackage, or allow some subpackages to > install with no license files. When the packages are configured to use shared libraries, the lib dependencies will always be there. For instance $ rpm -qp --requires mpqc-2.3.1-12.fc12.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/wish libSCbasis.so.7()(64bit) libSCclass.so.7()(64bit) libSCcontainer.so.7()(64bit) libSCdft.so.7()(64bit) and so on. The lib dependencies pull in the -libs package, along with its licenses. Independent packages must contain all (relevant) documentation in every package, but we avoid duplication of files in interdependent packages. -- 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