On Thursday 03 September 2009, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ville Skyttä wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 September 2009, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> rpm may have implicit dependencies on > >> base pkgs (from -devel ones) but these often aren't enough to ensure > >> things "just work". This falls under the "except when ... necessary" > >> section of the Explict_Requires guideline, imo. > > > > That's fine, I don't have that strong opinions on it. > > > > But Explicit Requires also says "When explicit library Requires are > > necessary, there should be a spec file comment justifying it." So in > > other words, libfoo-devel's explicit dependency on libfoo would need such > > a comment. I don't think that's the intent. This could be improved by > > saying > > > > "When explicit library Requires are necessary, there should be a spec > > file comment justifying it, except in cases that fall under the Requiring > > Base Package guideline." > > Shrug, that should go without saying, imo. Has there been confusion? I find the two guidelines' wording to be at least partially in conflict, and cross referencing like in above would clarify things. I'm an old fart here so I know how to interpret them, but I'd be surprised if it didn't confuse newcomers. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
