[Bug 171443] Provides need to be inserted in spec file

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Provides need to be inserted in spec file


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171443





------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de  2005-10-25 10:37 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> upstream is not being proprietary or imposing anything.
Am I blind? In comment #1 you can read:

> In your spec file, please insert
>
> Provides: imlib2-loader_jpeg, imlib2-loader_png
I.e. they want us to add artificial "provides", without any technical need to do so.

>  And, no, the
> "artificial constrains/requirements" argument doesn't fly.
Cf. above. It's what they are doing. They tell Fedora, "Wear this batch or die".

>  Looking at the
> upstream imlib2 specfile shows they simply chose to package each plugin
> separately (a valid, but way-overboard packaging choice).  
Where's the problem? It's a reasonable design.

> Now, I can understand FE not following suit there.  What I don't understand is
> why anyone would advocate FE purposely breaking compatibility with upstream
> packaging in this regard (by not using Obsoletes/Provides), without a good
> argument to do so.  

> Heck, it's only a few lines added to the specfile.
Heck, apparently you force me to become direct: 
These guys chose a broken approach: Instead of forcing others to do what they
want, they should use those requirements they actually use, not those they want
to impose on others:

If eterm loads (probably dlopens) /usr/lib/imlib2/loaders/jpeg.so
then they probably should Require this inside of their rpm. This file already is
provided by the imlib2-rpm.

If eterm loads jpeg.so from some path, they can "Require: jpeg.so". This virtual
property already is provided by the imlib2-rpm.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.