giflib for fc5

[Warren Togami]

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 13:54 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> 
>>Thanks, OK great.  It would be helpful if you could provide a proposed 
>>.src.rpm replacement for download and peer review to this list in a way 
>>similar to an Extras package review request.  That way folks here can 
>>test it and suggest other improvements while we follow the process for 
>>replacement in Fedora Core.
>>
>>I suppose we want both Obsoletes and Provides of the N-V-R of libungif 
>>and also matching -devel?
> 
> 
> Here's a spec file for giflib that doesn't quite work.  It's a port of
> the libungif spec file with a few cleanups similar to what we'd do if
> the package was moving to Fedora Extras.
> 
> The not quite working portion is the virtual Provides.  I think I'm
> running squarely into the issues exposed here:
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00133.html
> and explained in this post:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00175.html
> 
> Should I try something like:
>   %ifarch x86_64
>   Provides: libungif.so.4()((64bit)
>   %else
>   Provides: libungif.so.4
>   %endif
> 
> or is that too much of a hack?  Are there other archs (ppc64?) that need to be %ifarch'd?
> 
> -Toshio
> 

This issue I will wait for Jeremy to decide what to do.  Two other 
issues in your spec:

Obsoletes: libungif <= %{version}-%{release}
Provides:  libungif <= %{version}-%{release}
Wouldn't the new spec make more sense like this, then start Release: at 
4.fc5?  This way folks could rebuild this .src.rpm and unambiguously use 
it on older dists for personal testing and have no problem upgrading in 
the future to the FC5 version.

Have you tested a build without the explicit "Provides: libungif.so.4"? 
  What does the autoprovide do in that case?

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com