MultilibTricks

Michael Schwendt mschwendt at gmail.com
Tue May 6 07:43:58 UTC 2008


On Tue, 06 May 2008 00:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> > I found where the confusion is
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines:
> 
> > SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> > package using a fully versioned dependency.
> 
> > Note its a should and not a must.  I think a -libs subpackage is a
> > clear counter example that doesn't fall in the 'usual' wording. I
> > would daresay that usually, -libs subpackages don;t require the base
> > package.
> 
> > Do we really need that SHOULD?  Or do we need to expand on it a little?
> 
> Indeed, in my experience the entire POINT of a -libs subpackage is that
> it doesn't pull in the whole base package.  If it does, why are you
> bothering to create a separate libs subpackage?  So the review guidelines
> are indisputably broken here.

The guidelines say SHOULD, not MUST. And I believe that guideline has
its origin in the "explicit %epoch era" and is a bit misleading nowadays.

The foo-libs case is special, because it simulates a stand-alone libfoo
package, which may be used by other programs/packages.

A missing dependency between a sub-package and the main package is one
source of packaging mistakes. The sub-package *is* optional, but programs
[tools, scripts or other files] from the main package often are needed at
run-time. This is something to check carefully. And it applies also to
add-on packages created from a separate src.rpm.

-- 
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) - Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8
loadavg: 1.02 1.13 0.73




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list