Useless OpenEXR split
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Mon Sep 17 16:40:24 UTC 2007
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:23:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > Why does the -libs package require these tools?
>> > The .spec doesn't answer that question.
>> > In the other direction, there's a hardcoded strict dependency in
>> > addition to the automatic soname deps, creating a circle:
>> > $ rpm -qR OpenEXR|grep EXR
>> > OpenEXR-libs = 1.4.0a-5.fc8
>> > Conclusively, the split is useless.
>> It's cleaner wrt multilib, ie no OpenEXR.i386 in x86_64 repo.
>> (same goes for jasper).
> You didn't answer the question. Why does the -libs package require the
> tools? Do the libraries need the tools?!
I addressed the assertion that the split was useless. :)
> Just because of the dependency on the main package, optional example
> programs are installed and cannot be removed.
It's unclear (to me anyway) whether these truly are optional or not, ie, I
have yet to determine here (or in the jasper case) whether apps assume the
presence tools/binaries. In short, I'm playing it safe, and keeping the
same behavior as when there wasn't a -libs split.
More information about the fedora-devel-list