Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (155 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Re: RPM in openSUSE 13.1
  • From: Adam Spiers <aspiers@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:54:08 +0000
  • Message-id: <20140117095408.GB30405@pacific.linksys.moosehall>
Andrey Borzenkov (arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Adam Spiers <aspiers@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Marco Cimmino Gibellini (marco.cimmino@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
If openSUSE community is however not interested in a fully working
out-of-the-box openSUSE rpm package then we may think to remove
support for it and be happy with Fedora's RPM package which seems
much easier to produce for us.

Of course we're interested :-) That's why you already got ~20 replies
within 24 hours or so. But it seems your question is unusual enough

I rather consider unusual forcing two packages with identical content
but different names.

Which two packages are you talking about?

that the right answer was not immediately obvious. Did you try
Claudio's suggestion of

Recommend: alsa-plugins-pulse-32bit

It does not work when using rpm directly

So? Plenty of things don't work when using rpm directly.

and even with zypper users are free to use --no-recommends.

But the vast majority of users won't, so that doesn't render the use
of Recommend: pointless.

You can just as well simply describe this requirement on download page.

In preference to making it work automatically in the majority of cases?

Is there any reason why 32 bit libraries cannot provide libname(32bit)
just like 64 bit libraries provide libname(64bit)?

That sounds like a good idea to me.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups