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: ruby-shadow - ruby bindings for shadow password access https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240008 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-15 05:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Looking at what the rpm requires I get this: > $ rpm -q --requires ruby-shadow > ... > libruby.so.1.8()(64bit) > ruby(abi) = 1.8 > ... > > So we already require the 1.8 abi indirectly through libruby.so.1.8 > right? I know it already, however this works only for ruby module packages containing binary modules linked with libruby.so.*. So that we require to add "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8" is to make sure that this method works for as many (including noarch, arch-dependent) packages as possible. You can see the same phenomenon on python replated packages, where "Requires: python(abi) = 2.5" is automatically added even to arch-dependent packages. [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ rpm -q --requires python-imaging libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libfreetype.so.6 libjpeg.so.62 libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpython2.5.so.1.0 <======================== libz.so.1 python(abi) = 2.5 <======================== rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) and we want to apply this python method to ruby module packages _manually_ (we cannot do this automatically now because rpmbuild does not handle ruby abi for now) -- 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