review request for libpst

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:24:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote:

> Michael Schwendt wrote, at 04/09/2009 06:52 PM +9:00:
> > On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:06:57 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
> > 
> >>> Requires:           %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
> >>>
> >>> In the main utilities package, is this explicit dependency on the
> >>> library package really needed?
> >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires
> >> I have not checked this spec file in detail. however: 
> >>
> >> When I review packages I always request submitters to write
> >> exact EVR specific dependency between packages rebuilt from the
> >> same srpm and I think this is general for Fedora packages.
> >> ref:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > Here "libpst" would Requires "libpst-libs" with an explicit version in
> > addition to the automatic SONAME dep, but all other packages that would be
> > linked to libpst would rely on the automatic SONAME dep.
> 
> Because
> - As I already said almost all packages do so
>   (e.g. rpm -q --requires perl)
> - And you explain the reason by yourself below
>   (it is ensured that all packages are updated correctly, and
>    distinguishing between developers v.s. non-developers does
>    not make sense)

I can only explain the reason for the original guidelines, not the
reason why the additional "should" for non-devel subpackages was added.
 
> > More and more packagers even let -doc subpackages require the base
> > package, so one cannot install -doc packages anymore without dependency
> > bloat [as the base package often pulls in even further packages].
> 
> Um, actually in many cases -doc packages must require the base package
> because of the directory ownership issue for which you often file
> bugs.

That can be fixed in the subpackages with %dir, for example.