-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/01/2013 03:09 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1003196 > > Based on this suspicious output > > mate-dictionary from mate-utils provides > libmatedict.so.6()(64bit) mate-utils from mate-utils provides > libmatedict.so.6()(64bit) required by: > mate-dictionary-devel-1.6.0-7.fc20.x86_64 required by: > mate-utils-devel-1.6.0-7.fc20.x86_64 > > I've only verified in koji that lots of files are included in both > sub-packages. Even the descriptions overlap. > > And there are even more subpackages, which only contain copies of > files included in the base mate-utils package already. Why is that > done? Why aren't RPM dependencies used to have the base-package > depend on the multiple subpackages? > > So far, it has always been a packaging mistake to duplicate files > (and their Provides as a consequence) in multiple subpackages. Well, there are a few places where I can see duplicating files making sense (but certainly not to the degree demonstrated in the mate packages). For example, in the SSSD package, we duplicate the 'sssd_pac' libexec binary in both the 'sssd-provider-ad' and 'sssd-provider-ipa' plugin subpackages, rather than add useless metadata for an extra common subpackage for both to depend on. It seems wasteful to have a whole subpackage for one 150k binary. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlIl2FIACgkQeiVVYja6o6OCJwCeLlChllYfkw2XotaWFUsNN8bX ok8An2tDqieGQcnwXP8t9beDjTMLNBdB =pW9X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
