https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2565
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com> 2012-11-13 15:45:50 CET
---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #13)
> -GConf2
The GConf requirement is not there in "your" version?
No, not shown because it was in both of our packages was
libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit), so GConf2 isn't needed.
> I still think it makes more sense to use automatically generated
requires to
> get the information and possibly create a check that verifies that all library
> links in the binary ending in .0d or .1d have a symlink. But if you really
> want to go down the explicit route, at the very least you need to require the
> 64-bit versions of the libraries when building for 64bit.
It would be easy to add (64bit) suffix as required. Still, isn't a dependency
like libpng12.so.0 always resolved to a 64-bit library on a 64-bit host? I have
no reference, but since it works...
It may work most of the time, but this makes it a guarantee. People can do
crazy stuff, so we just make sure we're being *very* specific.
(Note that it's adding ()(64bit) as a suffix.)
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.