[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Followup to FESCO meeting: firefox dependancy tracking.



On 1/5/07, Christopher Aillon <caillon redhat com> wrote:
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).

I ran multiple runs of repoquery with fc6,updates,updates-testing, and
extras enabled.
Please read my message again. The first group of packages are the
packages that do not have a dep on firefox nor gecko-libs and that
netted only 4 packages from Extras as ones with a potential issue.  In
total there are 13 packages that my repoquery runs showed depend on
libraries from firefox. Since the number is so thankfully small, its
no big deal to follow up and add versioned requirments on a case by
case basis.

And I have to stress to everyone that this was a first attempt to just
identify the space of affected packages. repoquery definitely did not
catch everything, and I probably fat-fingered some of my hand editting
of the repoquery output. Since repoquery outputs all packages that
match... not just the 'newest'... i cleaned up the output a bit and
probably made a opps.

I'm much more concerned about packages that are using the firefox libs
but I can't see via the rpm deps at all. I can't think of a way to
check for that without installing all of fedora-space on a system and
doing a brute-force run of ldd looking for libxpcom for example.

And I don't think we ever really fixed how readahead works to account
for firefox's versioned directory.

-jef


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]