On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 15:22 -0500, Scott Lawrence wrote: >Fedora Core inludes w3c-libwww.rpm, but that version does not include >compilation with openssl. For lots of good reasons, we need the >openssl, so we build a version of the w3c-libwww.rpm that has it >enabled; that's the only difference. In this case, this is a bug in Fedora Core's w3c-libwww package. I can't think of a good reason for it not to depend on openssl, since it should be present on the vast majority of installs (and isn't an unreasonable dependency when installing w3c-libwww). >In any event, this seems to me to raise a general issue of how to cope >with the fact that some packages can be built in (potentially >overlapping) variants. How can we make all of the variants available >and express what each provides so that tools like yum can make the >correct choice? One of the hard and fast rules I intend to implement is that Fedora Extras packages cannot duplicate existing packages in Fedora Core. Please open a bug against bugzilla.redhat.com to get w3c-libwww to start building with ssl enabled, and by FC4, this issue should be moot. :) Otherwise we either start hacking conflict overrides, or we end up with rpms that have renamed libraries, effectively doubling the number of libraries on a system. The Red Hat package maintainers are willing to fix issues in their Core packages, and Fedora moves fast enough that it should never be a problem for more than 6 months. (And if the maintainers aren't willing, me and Greg can start beating them over the head with the cluestick) > ~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
