-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/04/2013 10:47 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:38:42AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/01/2013 03:09 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1003196
>>
>> Based on this suspicious output
>>
>> mate-dictionary from mate-utils provides
>> libmatedict.so.6()(64bit) mate-utils from mate-utils
>> provides libmatedict.so.6()(64bit) required by:
>> mate-dictionary-devel-1.6.0-7.fc20.x86_64 required by:
>> mate-utils-devel-1.6.0-7.fc20.x86_64
>>
>> I've only verified in koji that lots of files are included in
>> both sub-packages. Even the descriptions overlap.
>>
>> And there are even more subpackages, which only contain copies
>> of files included in the base mate-utils package already. Why
>> is that done? Why aren't RPM dependencies used to have the
>> base-package depend on the multiple subpackages?
>>
>> So far, it has always been a packaging mistake to duplicate
>> files (and their Provides as a consequence) in multiple
>> subpackages.
>
>
> Well, there are a few places where I can see duplicating files
> making sense (but certainly not to the degree demonstrated in the
> mate packages).
>
> For example, in the SSSD package, we duplicate the 'sssd_pac'
> libexec binary in both the 'sssd-provider-ad' and
> 'sssd-provider-ipa' plugin subpackages, rather than add useless
> metadata for an extra common subpackage for both to depend on. It
> seems wasteful to have a whole subpackage for one 150k binary.
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin...
So that would also be a packaging mistake. It's been many years
since this was last touched though. IIRC, mschwendt raised the
last issue with it so he may be best able to recall the
justifications for this rule and whether the FPC should consider
relaxing it.
For the record, I sent a patch to the SSSD upstream today to add a new
common sub-package for just that one file. It'll be cleaned up in the
next build.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlInlmQACgkQeiVVYja6o6PeBACfdhsGLWJmYiyysLY7SCzJfuzC
Y+sAn0m/csQLcFaPTYmO5ZFMXN1cNmUk
=bbM7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----