My mail was rejected before. This is a re-send.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Stefan van der Eijk wrote: > These are the BR for the current (1.3.12-1mdk) package: [......] > gdk-pixbuf-devel >= 0.7.0 > gtk+-devel >= 1.2.5 > gnome-libs-devel >= 1.0.59 > > Unless there is a REAL need to specify the required version of these > packages. I'm wondering what the effect of this is going to be. I'd > prefer to put versioning only if it's REALLY required (it really can't Versioned dependencies should never never never be removed without valid reasons. Usually software maintainers have need to specify versions for required libraries, due to incompatible API or bug fixed on newer libraries. But in *THIS* particular case, I think the above versioned dependencies can be removed safely without harm, since these versions are quite old. The use of %%configure2_5x already voided the version specifications, since %%configure2_5x exists much later than the above versioned libraries. > be built with another version, etc). Otherwise things are going to get > overly complicated and harder to maintain when time passes. On the other I'd prefer fixing things correctly, rather than get things done easily by merely avoiding trouble. > hand, if you put a version requirement on the libglade-devel and > gdk-pixbuf-devel won't that then garantee that you have the correct > version of gtk+-devel and gnome-libs-devel installed (because they get > pulled in)? We could possibly also add version requirements on the other > packages that are installed due to these BuildRequires: > [......... long list ..........] > gnome-print libimlib1-devel libgnome32-devel oaf liboaf0 > libglade-bonobo0 libGConf1 libgda0 GConf libgnome-db0 libglade-gnome-db0 > libglade0-devel libscrollkeeper0 scrollkeeper No version needed for all these except the few specified by software maintainer, I suppose. Abel > But wouldn't that be a bit too much? > > (anybody any comment on this)? > > >Should a package have no BuildRequires/Requires and just rely on the > >library names? > > > See above. > > >
