Hans de Goede wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Is there, or should there be, any Fedora packaging policy about the
following question? (I see nothing in the Guidelines at the moment.)
Given a single SRPM generating multiple sub-RPMs, some of which depend
on each other, how hard should the maintainer try to ensure that
matching versions of the sub-RPMs are installed? Possible answers
include:
1. Do nothing, rely on automatically generated requires (eg, the major
version of a shared library's soname). Maximum flexibility, maximum
possibility of allowing installations that don't actually work.
2. Put in cross-package requires of the form
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}
ie, constrain to "same upstream version"
3. Put in cross-package requires of the form
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
ie, constrain to "exact same build"
3. definitely is the way to go, we currently already mandate this for
-devel
subpackages, which we need to generalize I think, we should mandate
that:
a. -devel subpackages require the main or a -libs subpackage
b. that any inter srpm deps (including those from -devel on main / -libs)
should be fully versioned
s/inter/intra/
I think this is the way to go.
-Toshio
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
