On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> James Yonan wrote:
> >>I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
> >>saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
> >>
> >>The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
> >>
> >>============================ fix ===============================
> >>%if "%{_vendor}" == "MandrakeSoft"
> >>%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: liblzo1-devel >= 1.07}
> >>%{!?without_lzo:Requires: liblzo1 >= 1.07}
> >>%else
> >>%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: lzo-devel >= 1.07}
> >>%{!?without_lzo:Requires: lzo >= 1.07}
> >>%endif
> >>============================ snip ==============================
> >>
> >>Either way, there would still be an issue with Mandrake as I see that
> >>the lzo package of SuSE 9.1 provides "lzo" not "liblzo".
> >
> >
> > The problem I have with this patch is that it assumes that Mandrake will
> > continue to follow the broken behavior. The ideal solution would be one
> > which doesn't break when Mandrake gets around to using the same standard
> > LZO RPM spec which everyone else is using.
> >
>
> Yeah, probably the best solution. However, I see that they have been
> calling it liblzo1 since their 8.1 distro, and, technically, it is a
> library?
>
> The package maintainer has added the missing provide for "liblzo", this
> is now in liblzo1-devel-1.08-5mdk.i586.rpm and the
> liblzo1-1.08-5mdk.i586.rpm. That would at least clear up some confusion
> between liblzo1 vs. liblzo
Where are we on this?
Should we work around this in the openvpn.spec file, or just leave as-is
for 2.0, and wait for the lzo spec to be fixed?
James
