[Bug 270555] New: ladspa requires ladspa-devel
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=270555 Summary: ladspa requires ladspa-devel Product: openSUSE 10.3 Version: Alpha 3 Platform: All OS/Version: openSUSE 10.3 Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Other AssignedTo: tiwai@novell.com ReportedBy: lrupp@novell.com QAContact: qa@suse.de Why do we have a ladspa-devel package if the main package always requires it? Even "for compatibility" as mentioned in specfile this makes no sense. Other packages that requires ladspa.h can require this file correctly if you enable AutoProv in both packages. .and for "human resolvers", what about adding a "README.SuSE" file? BTW: Why not using one specfile for both packages? In this case you should have noticed, that the %doc part is currently in both packacges, which doesn't really reduce the total size of both packages... ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=270555 tiwai@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Comment #1 from tiwai@novell.com 2007-05-03 05:21 MST ------- I know it's a bit uncommon style, but I'd resolve this as WONTFIX. ladspa-devel.rpm contains only one header file (and docs), which defines API. This header file is required to build all LADSPA plugins. OTOH, ladspa.rpm contains the plugin binaries, and they do require the public header file. Having a public /usr/include/ladspa.h from ladspa-devel reduces this maintenance work (otherwise we have to patch codes). The reason that we have two spec files is to avoid unnecessary build-trigger. When we use a single spec file, ladspa-devel would be rebuilt often when the dependent packages are updated (e.g. fftw), and this triggers the rebuild of many package depending on ladpsa-devel (again, only for a single header file!). The documents contained in both packages are totally different things. The doucments in ladspa-devel are from ladspa_sdk while documents in ladspa.rpm are from other various tarballs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=270555 lrupp@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | ------- Comment #2 from lrupp@novell.com 2007-05-03 07:59 MST ------- (In reply to comment #1)
ladspa-devel.rpm contains only one header file (and docs), which defines API. This header file is required to build all LADSPA plugins. OTOH, ladspa.rpm contains the plugin binaries, and they do require the public header file. Having a public /usr/include/ladspa.h from ladspa-devel reduces this maintenance work (otherwise we have to patch codes).
Sorry for being a bit stupid at the moment: if the plugin binaries require the header file, why do we have an extra *-devel package at all? Why don't you just have a "Provides: ladspa-devel"? The reason behind my question: we want a media containing no *-devel package. The current solution for ladspa is working against this requirement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=270555 ------- Comment #3 from tiwai@novell.com 2007-05-04 02:20 MST ------- OK, judging from your comment, I'll simply remove the explicit Require there. This might break something, but at least not our tree but others :) BTW, AutoProv doesn't work in this case (because we have no *.so file to share). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=270555 tiwai@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Comment #4 from tiwai@novell.com 2007-05-04 17:28 MST ------- The fixed package was submitted / checked in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com