https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956737
--- Comment #5 from Markus Mayer <lotharl...@gmx.de> --- Actually, there two separate issues: 1. Explicit requiring a lib: In general, when a package requires any lib, rpm recognizes this automatically. So explicit lib requires are unnecessary (and also more error prone than letting rpm do it). (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires for more information) If I understand it correctly this package does not require libexif (libexif.so), but '/usr/bin/exif' (which is provided by exif). This must be fixed (either by requiring '/usr/bin/exif' or exif). 2. advantages of a file: - Multiple packages could provide the file - unaffected by package renames This is just a suggestion, if you want to require the packages by name I am also fine with it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sqRVnq1D5Z&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
