Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (140 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] libraries renaming problems
  • From: Michael Matz <matz@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:03:46 +0100 (CET)
  • Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802251659430.20583@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:

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.

I really don't think file requires are going to cut it.

Well, if a program does dlopen('/usr/lib/') then it should
require /usr/lib/ What is more natural than that?

Nothing. Except that programs will open /usr/lib/ or
/usr/lib64/, if written correctly. Or even
/usr/libexec/myapp/plugins/morepath/ , which even might move
over several app versions.

File requires are nowhere evil or bad.

Nor good.

Well. So you for example do

# this is in the shbang, so strictly requireed
Requires: /usr/bin/python
# we need python 2.5 at least
Requires: python-features >= 2.5

and then python needs to provide that feature version. Or if it
isn't that simple

Requires: /bin/ls
Requires: ls-color-support


Would work, yes.

But a versioned requires doesn't cut it as well, as the same version of
a program can be compiled with/without some features (busybox anyone?)

That's true. Conclusion: we are screwed anyway, however we try to solve
the problem ;-)

Nobody said that proper Requires/Provides are easy, but at least for a
core part of the distribution they should be done right (after spending
enough amount of thinking of course).

Let's just hope that the amount of thinking doesn't just lead to
overengineered solutions which solve no problem that ever happened :)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >