On 1 Dec 2002, Chris Picton wrote: > On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 22:07, Buchan Milne wrote:
> Isn't the point of the dependencies list inside an RPM that the RPM can > explicitly, at the time of install, let the user know what extra > libraries and versions are needed in order for the RPM to work > correctly. > Read my comment on the bugzilla bug. > If a RPM installs without any dependency errors, then the user should be > quite confident that the software will function correctly. If it does > not, then the dependency list of the RPM is broken (either the > dependency is not explicitly mentioned, or the method of getting > implicit dependencies is incorrect), and should be fixed. The mothod is correct (ldd). The only thing I can think of is that there an in compatability somewhere that should have been dealt with upstream by bumping the major number of the lib. Of course, if we knew which RPMS they had installed on their systems post 9.0, it might help. I suspect something to do with libXft2, which isn't in 9.0. But the point is that this is not a consequential bug. Rebuilding the SRPM on 9.0 (which would probably require turning off xft support) will result in a working RPM on 9.0. Upgrading all libs to cooker also works. There is no way anyone is going to encounter this bug except by running cooker packages on 9.0. It's not worth it to have Fred try and track it down. Of course, someone else could, but their time could arguably better be spent building mozilla for 9.0, so other people don't try this. Buchan (Who will probably settle for mozilla 1.2 without Xft support on 9.0) -- |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
