I agree that it's just absurd packagers need to manually add dependencies for
such a common case, but I don't really think adding yet more dependencies is
the solution. I filed the idea on a more generic level as #1105, lets continue
there.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
Closed #627.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/627#event-3101719562___
Rpm-maint mailing list
> The idea is that if one of the dependency is provided by any other package
> generated by this source package, then it would be replaced by reference to a
> package with exact EVR.
I'm pretty sure this would break a lot of rpm bootstrapping and re-layouting
scenarii. They often rely on
This is not how we roll as you should know perfectly well, please respect that.
Asking for external feedback (eg on distro devel forums) ideas is of course
fine, a change proposal is quite something else.
If you want to see things done differently, start by talking to us. Stepping
over
> This is NOT a time to submit Fedora features.
So when is the time? Submitting change proposals help to gather feedback from
community and get additional people on board for discussions.
Unless you don't want any external people to be involved, implement something
and then wait another 10
> I've submitted this:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Automatic_strict_inter-package_dependencies
@ignatenkobrain , not cool. Please withdraw that. We only have a beginnings of
discussion at upstream, no decision to actually go ahead and implement it, much
less an implementation.
> And maybe it will be fair to add some mention about ALT experience of this
> behavior.
This was also behavior in OpenMandriva, too.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> I've submitted this:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Automatic_strict_inter-package_dependencies
> pkgconfig(graphene-1.0) is provided by graphene-devel (coming from the same
> subpackage), so it can be dropped entirely
This looks a bit ambiguous, it may be understood as you propose
I've submitted this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Automatic_strict_inter-package_dependencies
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> This has been implemented in ALT here:
> http://git.altlinux.org/gears/r/rpm-build.git?p=rpm-build.git;a=blob_plain;f=build/interdep.c;hb=HEAD.
> That code does different things and hard to read, but that is where we can
> steal some ideas.
In that part of code the following happens (A, B
Is there anything better than `Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}` available?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Took me a while to figure out what you're really asking for here.
I think the more generic issue is (semi-)automatic, strong dependencies between
sub-packages, to avoid those ubiquitous and tedious ```Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}``` manual dependencies between sub-packages.
--
cc @wladmis @ldv-alt
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/627#issuecomment-460792388___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Imagine that the package you are building, contains following binary packages:
* util-linux (depends on libsmartcols.so.1)
* libsmartcols (provides libsmartcols.so.1)
I believe in 99.(9)% of cases you really want to have libsmartcols installed as
a provider and not something else what happen to
14 matches
Mail list logo
