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=659972 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-12-04 18:18:45 EST --- Christoph: you'll need to make a review request for votca-tools, as well. You're not a Fedora packager yet, right? (In reply to comment #2) > Umm.. > - currently (it seems) that if -devel package contains %_libdir/libfoo.so > and -libs or main package has %_libdir/libfoo.so.X, rpmbuild adds > the dependency libfoo.so.X to -devel subpackage. > For example libX11-devel has R: libX11-xcb.so.1 and R: libX11.so.6, > despite that libX11-devel contains only ldconfig symlink, header files, > pkgconfig files, and man files. I stand corrected. rpmlint of course complains if there is no explicit require in -devel. And the explicit require is required in the package review guidelines. > - And usually if libraries (%_libdir/libfoo.so.X*) are splitted out > into -libs subpackage, the main package has "R: -libs = %version-%release" > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > (In this case the "base" package is -libs). > e.g. file has "R: file-libs = %version-%release", many others do so Hmm, Mamoru seems to have a point here. Although, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires clearly states: "Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when absolutely necessary." -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review