https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2565
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Dieter <[email protected]> 2012-11-13 15:45:50 CET --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #13) > > -GConf2 > > The GConf requirement is not there in "your" version? No, not shown because it was in both of our packages was libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit), so GConf2 isn't needed. > > 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. > > 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... It may work most of the time, but this makes it a guarantee. People can do crazy stuff, so we just make sure we're being *very* specific. (Note that it's adding ()(64bit) as a suffix.) -- 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.
