Having said that, every package in Core which needs to has always had an explicit versioned requires (except for the packages in FC6 GOLD which was an unfortunate regression, but long since fixed). See the latest epiphany/devhelp/yelp RPMs for how to do the dependencies (I'm not sure how they got in your list of non-versioned deps unless you looked at FC6 GOLD).
So, the real question is now: do we want to continue to allow more gecko based applications into fedora at all? There is no real build environment for it, and it works only as a side effect of hacking it up to work for yelp, really which we need and is in core. I'd like to say no if we can help it. Things like esc have no business using gecko, IMO. Using gecko just opens up the package maintainer to a world of pain, which I also have to face, but I'm being paid for it at least. It is a negative experience for the maintainer to have to rebuild things all the damn time.
On 01/05/2007 02:17 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
As per the FESCO meeting item list, and irc discussion, here is my humble attempt to identify via repoquery what packages are currently prone to library dependancy breakage without being noticed by the automated scripts which just look for rpm autogenerated library dependancies. these are packages which have a requirement on a library from firefox, but do not explicitly require firefox or gecko-libs: epiphany-extensions-0:2.16.1-1.i386 gnome-chemistry-utils-mozplugin-0:0.6.3-4.fc6.i386 openvrml-gtkplug-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386 openvrml-mozilla-plugin-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386 If you just look at packages which do not use a versioned firefox dep you also get: devhelp-0:0.12-9.fc6.i386 epiphany-0:2.16.2-1.fc6.i386 galeon-0:2.0.3-4.fc6.1.i386 gtkmozembedmm-0:1.4.2.cvs20060817-7.fc6.i386 libswt3-gtk2-1:3.2.1-23.fc6.i386 openvrml-0:0.16.3-1.fc6.i386 yelp-0:2.16.0-11.fc6.i386 The only packages which use a versioned firefox requirements are: gnome-python2-gtkmozembed-0:2.14.2-6.fc6.i386 liferea-0:1.0.26-2.fc6.i386 My suggestion is that all packages which end up requiring a library from firefox should use a versioned dependancy as long as firefox continues to keep its libraries in a versioned directory tree ( currently /usr/lib/firefox-184.108.40.206/ ). If a versioned firefox requirement is used we can atleast become aware of breakage as it happens via the available infrastructure scripts. As it stands the majority of the packages which depend on libraries from firefox will have library breakages on firefox updates and we can't see them from the available rpm dependancy information. Users will hit this issues when the library linker goes looking for a library in the wrong place. Comments? Should I start filing bugs against these packages to get versioned firefox requires added to their specfiles? Should we look at making this sort of thing part of the review process that should be checked for? Note that my use of repoquery still doesn't catch problematic packages like gnome-python2-extras nor esc which do not have trackable rpm library dependancies for repoquery to work with. -jef -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers redhat com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature