On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 10:29 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > To justify the time I invested in this excercise, I filed bugs for a few > of the more obviously wrong cases: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224569 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224571 IMO, these are different cases, with similar symptoms, but with different causes than the "bogus DSO/shared lib 'Provides'". I think, 1. The "<lib>.so provides" should be tied to "ld.so's library search path" 2. The "perl() provides" (BZ 224569) should be tied to Perl's "module search-path". 3. BZ 224571 sounds like a bug in rpm's perl-reqprov filtering (Which is known to be pretty underdeveloped/immature and to quite frequently generate bogus/missing provide/requires) I know, many people will disagree, but IMO, 1+2 would not be an issue if rpm was using absolute filenames to DSO's/modules instead of virtual provides. > So, how does this list like the idea of adding a bulletpoint for > "sane provides" to the package review guidelines ? Could you elaborate? I don't understand. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
