Explicit requires vs. auto library requires, and fc3/devel versioning

Jeff Sheltren sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu
Sun Mar 20 15:34:26 UTC 2005

I have two (hopefully quick) questions which both refer to a bugzilla entry:

First, according to the old Fedora.us packaging documentation for using
requires ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HOWTOUseRequires ), it is enough to
rely upon rpm to find the library required instead of listing a specific
requires.  Is this still valid for packages in extras?  In this case, I
don't have a 'Requires: recode', but rpm picks up the dependency for
librecode.so.0.  This works great for me (doing a yum install fortune-mod
ends up grabbing recode as a dependency and everything gets installed
happily), but is apt-get not able to follow dependencies in that manner?  If
so, is it something we need to worry about?

Second, I'm a bit confused by Michael's comment:
But the fortune-mod packages released into Fedora Extras Development have
the same version-release as those for Fedora Extras 3. That's a bug.
Which brings me to my question: how should releases differ between FC3 and
development?  Are we supposed to have that FC3/FC4 tag as part of the
release?  If so, is this *only* for the case where the FC3 version = FC4

Thanks for the help.


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list