-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/04/2013 10:47 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:38:42AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> -----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. >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles > > So that would also be a packaging mistake. It's been many years > since this was last touched though. IIRC, mschwendt raised the > last issue with it so he may be best able to recall the > justifications for this rule and whether the FPC should consider > relaxing it. > For the record, I sent a patch to the SSSD upstream today to add a new common sub-package for just that one file. It'll be cleaned up in the next build. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlInlmQACgkQeiVVYja6o6PeBACfdhsGLWJmYiyysLY7SCzJfuzC Y+sAn0m/csQLcFaPTYmO5ZFMXN1cNmUk =bbM7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
