Le vendredi 08 juillet 2011 à 17:27 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit : > On 08.07.2011 07:37, Ahmad Samir wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I've had a rather vague idea about standardising the virtual provides > > in the distro, there should be: > > Provides: %{name}-devel > > Provides: lib%{name}-devel > > > > either both of them in _all_ packages, or one of them in _all_ > > packages, so that we don't have to check urpmq --provides all the > > time. Personally, I am more inclined on having them both, so as not to > > break already working specs. > > > > For example: > > $ urpmq --provides lib64gudev1.0-devel-166-5.mga1.x86_64 > > libgudev-devel[== 166-5.mga1] > > pkgconfig(gudev-1.0)[== 166] > > devel(libgudev-1.0(64bit)) > > lib64gudev1.0-devel[== 166-5.mga1] > > lib64gudev1.0-devel(x86-64)[== 166-5.mga1] > > > > only libgudev-devel, so if I put BR gudev-devel in a spec it won't > > work, whereas I'd expect it to work since some other packages have > > such similar provides: > > $ urpmq --provides lib64dbus-1-devel > > libdbus-1-devel[== 1.4.1-3.mga1] > > libdbus-devel[== 1.4.1-3.mga1] > > dbus-devel[== 1.4.1-3.mga1] > > [...] > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > (If we agree to go one way or the other, will just fix them gradually > > over time). > > I remember having this discussion in Mandriva when we dropped %major > from devel name. As a result the library policy (which we have on Mageia > as well) was altered so that all packages should have > - name-devel > - tarballname-devel > as provides, i.e. without lib%name-devel (except for existing pkgs). > This is what I've been using for any new packages I've packaged. > > However, as usual, I'm fine with any consistent scheme (one or the other > or both).
I would be in favor of keeping the compatibility with existing practice. -- Michael Scherer