rpms/bzflag/devel bzflag.spec,1.7,1.8

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 17:07 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:

> Besides, out of common courtesy you could have used different phrasing
> -- "use BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel libGL-devel libGLU-devel instead"
> sounds so much more helpful, don't you think?
I have to repeat my mantra again:

BuildRequires: XFree86-devel libGL.so.1 libGLU.so.1

XFree86-devel pulls in the general X11-devel-libs, comprising libGL.so
and libGLU.so (The devel versions of the libs)

In a RH standard build environment 
BR: libGL.so.1 pulls in xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL, 
BR: libGLU.so.1 pulls in xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU, 
which contain the run-time libs.

The devel-libs are required to be able to link against libGL/libGLU,
while the run-time libs (in many cases) are needed for configuration
checks to report correct results.

Not directly "BR: libGLU-devel"/"BR: libGL-devel" rsp. "xorg-x11-Mesa-
libGL"/xorg-X11-Mesa-libGLU" leaves users the freedom to use alternative
libGL/libGLU runtime libs when rebuilding rpms.

Directly "BR: libGL-devel" forces them to uninstall their libGL's and to
install the Mesa/x11-org libGL "lookalike" instead.

> I'll commit appropriate changes momentarily.
C.f. above. You are forcing users to uninstall their libGL.so

Ralf