bugs, bugs, bugs!

[Jeremy Portzer]

On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 19:54, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hi Milo,
> 
> > Most requires refering to libraries (as opposed to packages)
> > are generated automatically, which is a Good Thing. It means
> > that the requires are still valid even if XFree86-libs were split
> > into several packages.
> 
>  Right. So I'll concentrate on missing Requires. What about packages 
> that require a lib but don't mention the providing package? Should I 
> consider that a missing Requires then?
> 

No, it's better when the package ISN'T named, but rather the library
only.  Read what you quoted above -- "It means that the requires are
still valid even if XFree86-libs were split into several packages." 
What would happen if you put an explicit Requres: XFree86-libs and then
down the line, it got split into say, "XFree86-libs" and
"XFree86-oldlibs" and the library you need is in "oldlibs" ?  Things
would not upgrade nicely, because XFree86-oldlibs might not necessarily
get installed.  But if you just leave the dependency on
/usr/X11R6/lib/somelib.so.0 , then you'll be fine if package names
change like that.

The automatically generated library dependencies are a Good Thing(tm)
IMHO.  They certainly aren't causing any problems.  

--Jeremy

-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jeremy Portzer       jeremyp at pobox.com       trilug.org/~jeremy     |
| GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F  E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20030729/a2909fcb/attachment.sig>