rpms/git-core/devel .cvsignore, 1.10, 1.11 git-core.spec, 1.9, 1.10 sources, 1.10, 1.11

[Chris Wright]

* Ralf Corsepius (rc040203 at freenet.de) wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 13:26 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
> > Chris Wright wrote:
> > > * Ralf Corsepius (rc040203 at freenet.de) wrote:
> > > 
> > >>Here, the "BR: libz >= 1.2" is a "necessary condition" (in the
> > >>mathematical sense) to force users (or the buildsystem) to use a
> > >>sufficient zlib. Whether or not the sources support "graceful degrating"
> > >>to other internal underneath, isn't of any importance.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Problem is BR zlib >= 1.2 is completely irrelevant when installing a
> > > package, simply because implicit dependency on libz.so.1 is inaccurate.
> > 
> > Exactly.
> True, but ... you are trying to fix a non-issue.
> 
> This issue can only occur if a user installs a git-core having been
> compiled against libz.so.1.2.* on a system being equipped with
> libz.so.1.1*.

Exactly.

> The only situations this (theoretically) can happen is the user trying
> to _manually_ install a Fedora git-core package on non-Fedora rsp.
> ancient RH systems.

Agreed.  It just so happens that it's not unusual in this case, but it's
outside the scope of Fedora Extras packaging.  Users just grab the rpm
(gets built on RHEL4 in this case), install/update, and go as long as
rpm is happy dependency-wise.

> During automated updates/upgrades (up2date, yum, apt) this issue
> shouldn't occur, because then, zlib should be updated/upgraded at the
> same time.

Heh, I guess that's the point.  Add yum repo that just has that git-core,
yum update, and the install works fine, because implicit dependency is
inaccurately satisfied.  It's what people do, hence the change upstream.
But again, this isn't a Fedora issue (esp. considering you mentioned
Fedora always shipped with zlib-1.2).

> > > Since this shouldn't be an issue for FC/FE users, I can just drop that
> > > bit from upstream.  It's there only because somebody hit it, complained,
> > > and sent a patch.
> 
> The problem with your current spec is it being inconsistent:
> 
> You currently have:
> BuildRequires: zlib-devel
> Requires: zlib >= 1.2
> 
> This is inconsistent. It allow building against zlib < 1.2 but
> dissallows running it on such systems.

Yes, you're right.

> Either:
> BuildRequires: zlib-devel >= 1.2
> Requires: zlib >= 1.2

That works for me, thanks for your review/suggestions.

> Or
> BuildRequires: zlib-devel
> 
> Or even
> BuildRequires: zlib-devel >= 1.2
> Conflicts: zlib < 1.2
> 
> would be consistent.

thanks,
-chris