Fedora Extras Development Package Report
nphilipp at redhat.com
Thu Mar 24 16:21:09 UTC 2005
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 08:46 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 08:17 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>I was talking about
> >>BuildRequires: libGL.so.1 libGLU.so.1 XFree86-devel
> >>which, IMO of course, works and certainly isn't broken.
> > ... and is a workaround. Build requirements should IMO only be on
> > the .so files or their corresponding packages which in turn should
> > require the corresponding base packages without which they won't work
> > properly.
> OK, it's a workaround, but a reasonable and working one. IMO, the gains
> for it's simplicity and backward compatibilty (some of us still *do*
> care about that you know) still make it the best choice here.
> Realize also that your suggested solution is only a workaround too,
> since it doesn't refer-to/use .so files or their corresponding packages
> either (they're actually in xorg-x11-devel).
IMO, using the package name here makes most sense, as the devel packages
e.g. don't provide libGL.so but only the full path and we don't want to
require the specific path here, only the library. Requiring libGL.so.1
isn't sufficient either as you need libGL.so anyway. Think "the package
needs libfoo so I'll buildrequire libfoo-devel".
> What you've *really* been hinting at with "... which in turn should
> require their corresponding base packages" commment is broken deps in
> xorg-x11-devel in that it should
> Requires: xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL and ...-libGLU
> so I suggest you try convincing Mike Harris instead (and good luck with
> that... (-:)
I've Cc'ed my initial response to him, but I gather he's not awake yet.
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp at redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
More information about the fedora-extras-list