https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 --- Comment #61 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #60) > (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 :) Maybe also your indivdual subpackages (src, javadoc, [devel]) should be bound by NVR[A] with main package. Well the devel have same fun with [arch] :) -- 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
