https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 --- Comment #60 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #58) > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #54) > > You are not requireing any "java" ( or "java-devel" for devel subpackage) is > > it intentional? It may be (and my bindings are bringing those), but do not > > gave much sense.... > > I did not want to introduce premature requires, I think now is a good time > to decide what requires each package should have. Probably good idea. Currently on my side: java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx requires java-1.8.0-openjdk and openjfx java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-debug requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-debug and openjfx java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-devel requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel and openjfx-devel java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-devel-debug requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-debug and openjfx-devel Feel free to ignore debug variants. They have nothing to do with you. java and java devel is always required in same VRA as fx subpackage. In adition, openjdfx is required in same architecture as fx subpackage. See the patch from #c56 I think that your packages needs only: openjfx requires java openjfx-devel requires java-devel Still I do not claims it as best idea, nor I'm saying that mya laready pushed requires are best what could be done. But well.. what else to do :) -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
