https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dan@xxxxxxxx --- Comment #24 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #23) > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #22) > > > > 2. Requires: sylpheed > > > > > > > > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it automatically. > > > > > > Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built > > > differently. > > > > no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in the > > resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter in > > which package or rpm libsylph will live. > > > > If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the > > libsylph library into own subpackage. > > Sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, but does this not mean > that sylpheed will have to be rebuilt and be disruptive to an existing > mature package (the mailer?). There is nothing disruptive on introducing a new subpackage in an exiting package. The library file is already there, it will just move to new rpm. > Btw, someone is trying to package libsylph separately, FWIW: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927 I don't understand why someone wants to introduce 8 years old code when an up-to-date version is already available in the distro ... > > New files removing requirement of sylpheed posted at: > > > SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec > SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-6.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review