On Sunday 02 May 2010, Marcus Meissner wrote:
libv4lconvert0.x86_64: E: shlib-fixed-dependency (Badness: 440) libv4l = 0.6.4 libv4l1-0.x86_64: E: shlib-fixed-dependency (Badness: 440) libv4l = 0.6.4 libv4l2-0.x86_64: E: shlib-fixed-dependency (Badness: 440) libv4l = Is that check really correct? Looks genuine to me. Why do you consider it a false positive? Its not, the main "libv4l" just contains plugins.
does "it's not" mean that it is not a false positive? I agree with that :-) This is the classic example of a correctly identified dependency issue. the plugins are not packaged in a library-specific subdir, and therefore would conflict when trying to install two versions of the library in parallel. Thats exactly what the check is trying to achieve.
440 is still way below 1000 (the threshold for a failed build) 3*440.
Yep, and I hope the package maintainer doesn't consider building from seperate spec files a valid workaround ;-) Greetings, Dirk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org