On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:43:55 -0500
Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So a -devel's
> Requires: %{name} ...
> is treated differently (is arch specific) than a -libs's
> Requires: %{name} ...
> (which isn't?)
>
> or is there some implicit requires in -devel's lib*.so symlink (which
> doesn't show in 'rpm --requires' or 'rpm --provides')?
It's a require that is generated at build time by following where
the .so symlink points to and requiring that library file.
$ rpm -qp
--requires /srv/pungi/dev21.3/7.90/Fedora/i386/os/Fedora/lockdev-devel-1.0.1-11.fc7.i386.rpm
warning: /srv/pungi/dev21.3/7.90/Fedora/i386/os/Fedora/lockdev-devel-1.0.1-11.fc7.i386.rpm:
Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2
liblockdev.so.1
<snip>
$ rpm -qp
--requires /srv/pungi/cache/lockdev-devel-1.0.1-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm
warning: /srv/pungi/cache/lockdev-devel-1.0.1-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm: Header
V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2
liblockdev.so.1()(64bit)
<snip>
See how one is the non arch specific liblockdev.so.1 and the other is
arch specific? ockdev.so.1' and the only thing that provides that is
the i386 build. Likewise the only thing providing the
liblockdev.so.1()(64bit) is the x86_64 build of it.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
