Hi,
On 04/29/2012 05:13 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 04/27/2012 07:36 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:13:47AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I'm going to add a switch to allow packages to control the behavior
anyway. Whether rpm upstream defaults to the traditional
On 04/29/2012 06:25 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 04/29/2012 06:13 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 04/27/2012 07:36 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:13:47AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I'm going to add a switch to allow packages to control the behavior
anyway. Whether
On 04/27/2012 07:36 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:13:47AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I'm going to add a switch to allow packages to control the behavior
anyway. Whether rpm upstream defaults to the traditional behavior for
compatibility reasons or not is another
On 04/29/2012 06:13 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 04/27/2012 07:36 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:13:47AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I'm going to add a switch to allow packages to control the behavior
anyway. Whether rpm upstream defaults to the traditional behavior
I started once again looking at ways to eliminate the unwanted provides
on private libs such as dlopen()'ed modules with minimal fuss and
breakage. Been down this route more than once but I suspect the last
time was before the major dependency generator changes in rpm-4.9.x,
which made
On 04/27/2012 09:13 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I started once again looking at ways to eliminate the unwanted provides
on private libs such as dlopen()'ed modules with minimal fuss and
breakage. Been down this route more than once but I suspect the last
time was before the major dependency
On 04/27/2012 11:25 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 04/27/2012 09:13 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I started once again looking at ways to eliminate the unwanted provides
on private libs such as dlopen()'ed modules with minimal fuss and
breakage. Been down this route more than once but I suspect the
Hi,
On 04/27/2012 10:13 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I started once again looking at ways to eliminate the unwanted provides on
private libs such as dlopen()'ed modules with minimal fuss and breakage. Been
down this route more than once but I suspect the last time was before the major
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:13:47AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I'm going to add a switch to allow packages to control the behavior
anyway. Whether rpm upstream defaults to the traditional behavior for
compatibility reasons or not is another question, but Fedora is
obviously free to
[resent another time because the list automatically rejected my mail]
On 27/04/12 10:13, Panu Matilainen wrote:
[...]
The short background is that for libraries which dont have a SONAME,
rpmbuild fakes one based on the file name. The rationale for this has
been that since the linker
10 matches
Mail list logo
