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

Re: Changes to openvrml.spec

On 09/12/2009 05:45 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> ... it *does* work like I think it works.  xulrunner and openjdk are
> broken.

So, here's the deal.

The only Provides which automagically get %{isa} appended to them are
the package name autogenerated provides. So, in this spec snippet:

Name: foo
Version: 0.1
Release: 1
Provides: bar = 0.2

It is only safe to assume that "foo%{isa}" exists as a Provide.

Now, if your package needs to use "bar%{isa}" as a Provide, you can ask
the maintainer of the foo package to add an additional Provide:

%if 0%{?isa}
Provides: bar%{isa} = 0.2

If and when they do so, then (and ONLY THEN) is it appropriate for you
to have:

Requires: foo%{isa}

in your package.

In the specific case of openvrml, NOTHING currently provides either
"gecko-libs%{isa}" or "java%{isa}", thus causing the openvrml to be
wholly broken and uninstallable. This is why I dropped the %{isa} off of
them in rawhide.

I know that you have filed bugzilla tickets with xulrunner and openjdk
to add these additional provides, and when they make this change, it is
perfectly acceptable for you to update the openvrml Requires
accordingly. It is not however, acceptable to leave openvrml in an
uninstallable state while you wait for those tickets to be resolved.

(Alternately, there may be merit in lobbying upstream RPM to append
%{isa} automagically to all non-file provides (as an additional provide,
not as a replacement), but I don't know what they will think about that.)

Hope that clarifies things here,


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