Ping, any comments on this? On Saturday 02 May 2009, Ville Skyttä wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when > absolutely necessary. [...] > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned > dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually, > subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a > fully versioned dependency. > > I think these two guidelines or their wording are more or less in conflict > these days. Most -devel packages do not "absolutely necessarily" need an > explicit dependency on the base package because rpm automatically adds > soname dependencies from symlinks in -devel to the corresponding shared lib > in the main/lib package. Ditto, many cases of other non-devel subpackages > get automatic lib soname dependencies to the main/lib package. > > If the intent is to still require explicit deps like in "requiring base > package" even though there are automatic ones that would usually work, just > to be sure or for other reasons (possibility of compilation options, > patchwork that affects some internal subpackages but not other -devel/lib > package consumers), I think "requiring base packages" and "explicit > requires" should be cross referenced noting that this is an exception and > those explicit deps are indeed wanted. > > If not, IMO "requiring base package" should be softened so that it requires > adding those explicit deps if no automatic ones are present, or just > removed because that'd be redundant with "explicit requires" and the rest > of the general dependency guidelines. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
