https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #24 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in Unluckily, we have it mostly opposite. java-openjdk requires %{name}-headless%{?1}%{?_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} (?1 is nothing xor debug) and rest is usually transitive. Main package have: Requires: %{name}-headless%{?1}%{?_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} correctly java-openjdk-headless - requires nothing, as rest requires it java-openjdk-devel - Requires: %{name}%{?1}%{?_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} ?1 confuses rpmlint? java-openjdk-jmods - Requires: %{name}-devel%{?1} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release java-openjdk-demo , Requires: %{name}%{?1}%{?_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} java-openjdk-src ,Requires: %{name}-headless%{?1}%{?_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} java-openjdk-javadoc-zip , hmm.. no requires, no provides... hmmm Issue? java-openjdk-accessibility , Requires: %{name}%{?1}%{?_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release (agaiin, ?1 confused it?) java-openjdk-javadoc , no requirement. imho it deserves to be included without jre itself. If non-debug are good, then those are also good, as the macro is generating them. In addition, thoise will never be discovered by rpmlint, as those depends on java-openjdk-whatever-debug version (in same rationale as normla ones). And (imho) have no reason te depend on nonrmal ones. java-openjdk-debug java-openjdk-headless-debug , java-openjdk-devel-debug java-openjdk-jmods-debug , java-openjdk-demo-debug java-openjdk-src-debug , java-openjdk-javadoc-debug , java-openjdk-javadoc-zip-debug , java-openjdk-accessibility-debug , java-openjdk-debugsource - What is this? java-openjdk-debuginfo , And what is this? So imho the only real issue (unlessomebody tells me whta are those last two) is java-openjdk-javadoc-zip. Imho should be fixed. No requires - same reasoning as javadoc, but some virtual provides shouldbe there. So taken from javadoc: %define java_javadoc_rpo() %{expand: OrderWithRequires: %{name}-headless%{?1}%{?_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} # Post requires alternatives to install javadoc alternative Requires(post): %{_sbindir}/alternatives # in version 1.7 and higher for --family switch Requires(post): chkconfig >= 1.7 # Postun requires alternatives to uninstall javadoc alternative Requires(postun): %{_sbindir}/alternatives # in version 1.7 and higher for --family switch Requires(postun): chkconfig >= 1.7 # Standard JPackage javadoc provides Provides: java-javadoc-zip%{?1} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} Provides: java-%{javaver}-javadoc-zip%{?1} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} Provides: java-%{javaver}-%{origin}-javadoc-zip = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} } Including also alternatives, as spec contains alternatives --install %{_javadocdir}/java-zip javadoczip .... lines What do you think? -- 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
