On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:05:13 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 17:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:32:27 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 13:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > > What is it about the nemiver-devel.i386 that absolutely requires > > > > > nemiver.i386 instead of nemiver.x86_64? > > > > > > > > The ability to link against 32-bit libs. > > > > > > That means it should require those 32-bit libs. Ideally this requires > > > would happen automatically, through the use of a .so symlink to a > > > versioned arch specific shared object. However I gather that this isn't > > > necessarily C so there is no symlink. I hate that we would have to add > > > yet another file requires here. > > > > It is C/C++, and there is no .so symlink because the library uses > > a version-less SONAME and therefore uses a .so file name already. > > Got any clever thoughts on how to resolve this, without adding manual > file deps? Clever? Add a version to the soname after talking to upstream about it. If they think the library interface is not stable enough, they can still use .so.0 instead of just .so Alternatively, ship a dummy executable in the -devel package, which causes rpmbuild to create an automatic soname dep. ;) -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
