[Fedora-packaging] Policy question: how tight should cross-subpackage Requires be?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Hans de Goede wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is there, or should there be, any Fedora packaging policy about the
>> following question?  (I see nothing in the Guidelines at the moment.)
>>
>> Given a single SRPM generating multiple sub-RPMs, some of which depend
>> on each other, how hard should the maintainer try to ensure that
>> matching versions of the sub-RPMs are installed?  Possible answers
>> include:
>>
>> 1. Do nothing, rely on automatically generated requires (eg, the major
>> version of a shared library's soname).  Maximum flexibility, maximum
>> possibility of allowing installations that don't actually work.
>>
>> 2. Put in cross-package requires of the form
>>     Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}
>> ie, constrain to "same upstream version"
>>
>> 3. Put in cross-package requires of the form
>>     Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
>> ie, constrain to "exact same build"
>>
> 
> 3. definitely is the way to go, we currently already mandate this for 
> -devel
>    subpackages, which we need to generalize I think, we should mandate 
> that:
> 
> a. -devel subpackages require the main or a -libs subpackage
> b. that any inter srpm deps (including those from -devel on main / -libs)
>    should be fully versioned
>
s/inter/intra/

I think this is the way to go.

-Toshio