https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2565
--- Comment #15 from Alec Leamas <[email protected]> 2012-11-13 15:20:16 CET --- (In reply to comment #13) [cut] > The one area where I'm still not happy with it is that it's still not properly > getting the requires for the symlinked libraries. > > The following is a diff of requires for -2.fc17 versus my test package: > $ diff -urb list1.s list2.s > --- list1.s 2012-11-13 15:16:03.556731030 +0200 > +++ list2.s 2012-11-13 15:16:08.359561375 +0200 > @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@ > /bin/sh > /bin/sh > -/bin/sh > -GConf2 The GConf requirement is not there in "your" version? [cut] > I still think it makes more sense to use automatically generated requires to > get the information and possibly create a check that verifies that all library > links in the binary ending in .0d or .1d have a symlink. But if you really > want to go down the explicit route, at the very least you need to require the > 64-bit versions of the libraries when building for 64bit. > > Also note that you can drop both the GConf2 and libpng12 requires as the > libraries they provide are automatically being required already. It would be easy to add (64bit) suffix as required. Still, isn't a dependency like libpng12.so.0 always resolved to a 64-bit library on a 64-bit host? I have no reference, but since it works... (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #12) [cut] > Thanks for your patience as we go back and forth on > this. ;) Same to you. Improving a package while learning some is not bad. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
