Useless OpenEXR split
mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam at arcor.de
Mon Sep 17 17:13:48 UTC 2007
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:40:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 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.
For jasper, the executables are _example programs_. RTFM confirms that.
For OpenEXR, they are referred to as additional utilities. The prefix
"exr" in their names does not appear in any of the libs.
$ rpm -ql OpenEXR-libs
$ grep -i exr /usr/lib/libHalf.so.4
$ grep -i exr /usr/lib/libIex.so.4
$ grep -i exr /usr/lib/libIlmImf.so.4
Binary file /usr/lib/libIlmImf.so.4 matches
$ grep -i exr /usr/lib/libIlmThread.so.4
$ grep -i exr /usr/lib/libImath.so.4
$ strings /usr/lib/libIlmImf.so.4|grep -i exr
More information about the fedora-devel-list