Re: Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?
On Monday 08 March 2010, Chen Lei wrote: > Requiring Base Package > > Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned > dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually, > subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a > fully versioned dependency. It says "usually". But anyway I think the main of this is that *if* the subpackage requires the main package in the first place, the dependency should usually be fully versioned; I don't think its intent is to encourage pulling artificial dependencies out of thin air. By the way, the same applies to -devel packages so the "must" is a too strong expression for them although they usually actually do require the main package. But when they don't, there is no reason to add any dependency to the main package, versioned or not. (And yes, when they do, it's good to mandate the dependency to be fully versioned.) Would not hurt to rephrase this in the guidelines to avoid confusion. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?
From package guideline Requiring Base Package Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually, subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. 在2010-03-09 01:42:40,"Ville Skyttä" 写道: >On Monday 08 March 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote: >> Hello All! >> >> I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues, >> and one of them draws my attention - explicit "Requires: %{name} = >> %{version}-%{release}" in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java >> experience is rather small, I would like to ask you, dear List, >> whether %{name}-javadoc sub-packages really must require %{name}? > >No, unless they actually require something from the main package, which would >be unusual. >-- >devel mailing list >devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?
On Monday 08 March 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello All! > > I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues, > and one of them draws my attention - explicit "Requires: %{name} = > %{version}-%{release}" in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java > experience is rather small, I would like to ask you, dear List, > whether %{name}-javadoc sub-packages really must require %{name}? No, unless they actually require something from the main package, which would be unusual. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?
Hello All! I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues, and one of them draws my attention - explicit "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java experience is rather small, I would like to ask you, dear List, whether %{name}-javadoc sub-packages really must require %{name}? -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel