[Bug 192052] Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library)

[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: Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library)
Alias: bitgtkmm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052





------- Additional Comments From rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu  2006-07-29 21:08 EST -------
> No. These are packages required to run. Say I didn't have atkmm on my machine
> (just as an example). Without the R atkmm being explictly states in the spec
> file, the package would know no better until it gets to a point that atkmm is
> needed and then it falls over dead.

Check out:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires

rpmbuild adds the requires, such as (continuing with the atkmm example):
libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit)

If you try and install bitgtkmm, rpm will complain that libatkmm-1.6.so.1 is 
required. If you're using yum, it will look up libatkmm-1.6.so.1 as a library 
in atkmm and add atkmm to the dependency installs.

The situation you ran into with Anjuta was a little different. The reason why 
you had to explicitly add it was that the Anjuta runtime didn't have a 
dependency on the gtkmm runtime libraries, so rpmbuild didn't add it to the rpm 
requires.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.