[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 bugs.michael at gmx.net  2005-10-25 11:24 EST -------
Unconvincing.

> Provides: imlib2-loader_jpeg, imlib2-loader_png

The fundamental problem here simply is, Fedora Extras has packaging
guidelines for the sake of avoiding packaging pitfalls and problems.
Explicit and hardcoded dependencies on non-versioned package names
are bad. They ought to be avoided, particularly since imlib2-loader_foo
packages or virtual Provides don't exist within Fedora Extras. Adding
them would create virtual dependencies on something which isn't tracked
anywhere.

There is absolutely no point in taking over a broken package design
just to follow upstream's packages. Many upstream projects distribute
first-come-first-served contributed packages which are packaged poorly
or which change rather wildly as contributors send in spec changes.

The notion of "authoritative upstream packages" is over the top, IMO.
The Eterm package even adds "Requires: imlib2", which would dictate
using "imlib2" as the package name, which is inacceptable in times
of automatic SONAME dependencies. The src.rpm contains only an old
spec %changelog dating back as far as Red Hat Linux in 2001 without
mentioning any changes since then.

Comparing with SuSE Linux 9.3:

$ rpm -qp --provides imlib2-loaders-1.1.1-7.i586.rpm 
argb.so  
bmp.so  
bz2.so  
gif.so  
jpeg.so  
png.so  
pnm.so  
tga.so  
tiff.so  
xpm.so  
zlib.so  
imlib2-loaders = 1.1.1-7

Cannot see the Provides in a Mandrake Cooker rpm either.

-- 
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.