On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Dirk Mueller wrote:
the name opened - in the most cases this is sth like /usr/lib/libfoo.so).
I dislike this idea, because fileprovides cannot be versioned, so you're loosing vital dependency information.
Yeah, for this case I'd rather the package which has dlopening components to also simply mention the SONAME they open directly. I.e. exactly what also autoreqprov would find out if it were a real DT_NEEDED dependency.
Yep. That's the alternative to requiring /usr/lib/libfoo.so. But you need to do sth like %ifarch x86_64 ia64 ppc64 s390x Provides: libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) %else Provides: libgcj_bc.so.1 %endif (with Requires: instead of course). Of course that doesn't help you if the application dlopens libfoo.so and that is in the libfoo-devel package (as required by the shlib policy) which does _not_ provide libfoo.so.1. So, the file requires is still needed here (unless you want to require libfoo-devel here). For versioning the soname requires should be added. Thus, do both in this case.
For the same reason I don't think that filerequires for base packages are a good idea. unless you want to rewrite and revalidate all scripts in base to be compatible to the lowest common dominator. A pointless effort.
Hmm, a good point.
Not really. Scripts in the base packages should restrict themselves to whatever is provided by POSIX. (or LSB in our case) You want that anyway, otherwise building a package for older versions will start to randomly fail based on whatever fancy new feature you used in your scripts. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org