David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > If that's the case, then they should stop billing themselves as RedHat
> > compatible... In fact, in my book, they have stopped being that the 6.0
> > series...
> > I see the reason why, but they continue to advertise that compatibility.
> > Harry
>
>
> You will have to ask. Actually, I'd say that 8.0 is where they really
> tended to be non-RedHat compatible, because the libs naming scheme
> changed, and they don't provide dependencies with the names of the
> equivalent Redhat packages (which I happen to prefer, actually).
Actually the policy indicates to use some "provides" on the original
names, to preserve the compatibility:
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/howtos/mdk-rpm/advanced.html#LIB-POLICY
"
It is important to supply some Provides. First reason: concerning the
devel package, most of the time the client app will only want to put
libfoo-devel in the BuildRequires, without any version information. Second
reason, for compatibility with other RPM-based systems, it's important to
provide also original names, qualifying versions. Please refer to
following skeleton examples. It's important to understand that putting a
Provides without the version information, makes it impossible for later
client RPM's to put a version information on dependencies, e.g. "Provides:
foo-devel" is NOT enough, please use "Provides: foo-devel = 1.2.4-3mdk".
"
But packagers are strange animals, they tend to forget the rules :-).
> Still, there is enough there to make the claim that they are RedHat
> compatible, but I am not sure if it warrants 100% as it says on the
> webpage.
Yes, of course ;p.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
