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

Owen Taylor otaylor at redhat.com
Sun Mar 20 16:56:53 UTC 2005

On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 07:34 -0800, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> I have two (hopefully quick) questions which both refer to a bugzilla entry:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=151581
> 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?

If apt-get can't follow file dependencies, it isn't going to work with
the majority of RPMs out there. (I have no idea whether it can or not.)
I don't think that is worth worrying 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
> version?

Apparently it doesn't matter how you do the versions as long as the FC4
version is newer. But if you are doing development for FC4 then
backporting to FC3, including the fc4 tag in all your devel branch
version is a good way to make sure that you have a lower number
available for fc3. (See my "Basic Questions" post for a specific
scheme that works that way.)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050320/9970f67e/attachment.sig>

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list