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

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Sun Mar 20 20:39:37 UTC 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:34:32 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:

> Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> > On 3/20/05 8:51 AM, "Ville Skyttä" <ville.skytta at iki.fi> wrote:
> > 
> >>apt-get will follow such deps just fine.  If some depsolver doesn't, the
> >>depsolver needs to be fixed, not worked around in packages.
> >>
> > 
> > Strange, perhaps that user isn't pointing apt-get to look at core packages
> > as well as extras packages - that would explain the error.
> > 
> Or maybe the user is using a broken apt repository.  Conectiva thinks 
> file dependencies are bad, so by default they aren't included in the 
> apt-rpm metadata unless you use the --bloat flag with genbasedir.  With 
> --bloat during metadata creation apt client works fine.

librecode.so.0  is _not_ a file dependency. It is a SONAME dependency
determined and created by rpmbuild and has worked fine in Apt-Rpm for

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list