(Sorry to butt in here, but on one point...) On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 3:51 AM RPM Fusion Bugzilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> *Comment # 11 <https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4993#c11> on > bug 4993 <https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4993> from > Akarshan Biswas <[email protected]> * > > (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #10 > <https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4993#c10>) > > Are you sure the libva dependency needs to be explicitly added ? > yes, video acceleration api depends on libva. We are using the system libva > for > the build. > > That's not the question, the issue is whether the dependency needs to be *explicitly* stated in the spec file itself. Fedora (and thus RPMfusion) packaging policy is to let rpmbuild handle library dependencies automatically wherever possible. If chromium is being linked with any /usr/lib64/libva*.so*, that'll be discovered automatically when the binaries are packaged up, and those specific libraries will be added as runtime dependencies. That's generally preferable to specifying them automatically. Typical pattern is to set e.g. "BuildRequires: libva-devel", to ensure the appropriate headers and unversioned .so files are present at compile time, and then let rpmbuild figure out the runtime requires for itself. In standard compile-and-link scenarios involving shared libraries, it does a far better job than we can in the spec file. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
_______________________________________________ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
