rpms/gnumeric/FC-4 gnumeric.spec,1.3,1.4
Hans de Goede
j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Mon Oct 24 09:48:25 UTC 2005
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 24 octobre 2005 à 01:30 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
>
>>On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:40:50 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Le dimanche 23 octobre 2005 à 20:49 +0200, Hans de Goede a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Also the "This also makes file/path based
>>>>dependencies impossible, since for any package which would want to
>>>>"Requires: /usr/share/mc" a dep resolver would run into an ambiguity."
>>>>Argument made by Michael is IMHO a pure theoretical and thus not valid
>>>>argument, why would a package ever want todo a thing like "Requires:
>>>>/usr/share/mc"?
>>>
>>>Indeed. If one really wanted to require mc without specifying any
>>>package name, /usr/bin/mc would be the thing to ask for.
>>
>>No, indeed not. What you call a purely theoretical dependency is "one
>>package requiring the root directory of something else". No more, no
>>less.
>
>
> Then have gnumeric require this dir. I don't care.
>
> What you can't do is:
> 1. state this dir may be required by packages that need to stuff things
> inside
> 2. ergo, ownership can not be shared
> 3. but since in gnumeric case you find it too much hassle, do not
> actually do 1. and keep 2.. But 2. is only a good rule if you do 1. If
> you don't do 1., I don't see why other packages would, and so 2. has no
> base at all.
>
>
Still confused over here, as the maintainer of the package which
trigered this discussion, can the powers that be please take a decission
on this and create a couple of guidelines, then I'll implement what ever
comes out.
Regards,
Hans
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list