https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2565
--- Comment #15 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2012-11-13 15:20:16 CET
---
(In reply to comment #13)
[cut]
The one area where I'm still not happy with it is that it's
still not properly
getting the requires for the symlinked libraries.
The following is a diff of requires for -2.fc17 versus my test package:
$ diff -urb list1.s list2.s
--- list1.s 2012-11-13 15:16:03.556731030 +0200
+++ list2.s 2012-11-13 15:16:08.359561375 +0200
@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
-/bin/sh
-GConf2
The GConf requirement is not there in "your" version?
[cut]
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.
Also note that you can drop both the GConf2 and libpng12 requires as the
libraries they provide are automatically being required already.
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...
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #12)
[cut]
Thanks for your patience as we go back and forth on
this. ;)
Same to you. Improving a package while learning some is not bad. :)
--
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.