[Fedora-packaging] Re: -devel arch dependencies

Jesse Keating jkeating at redhat.com
Thu Apr 12 19:31:03 UTC 2007

On Thursday 12 April 2007 15:09:47 Matthias Saou wrote:
> I did the latter, but IIRC it is preventing me from installing some
> apps that are only available in 64bit and require the gecko engine
> which still hasn't been split out.

And it won't either.  Mozilla decided that they don't want gecko to be a 

> Anyway, in the end my vote would be to change yum's behaviour from
> "install all available archs of the latest version" to "install best
> available arch of the latest version" when no arch is specified, and
> not have anaconda install any compat 32bit packages by default.
> As a side note, this is something I have always found quite annoying
> too : Any explicit package requirement from within a package also
> "triggers" the installation of all available archs (which is actually
> coherent with the current behavior, but annoying nevertheless).
> Example : If your package explicitly "Requires: curl" although it only
> really requires libcurl.so.3, which rpm also added automatically,
> you'll end up with curl.i386 and dragging in all of its dependencies.
> Without the explicit requirement, only curl.x86_64 would have been
> necessary.

Those are packaging bugs regardless of how yum / rpm handle them.  Explicit 
Requires should be avoided if the rpm will pick up library requirements on 
its own.

Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070412/4278a5b1/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list