[Bug 659972] Review Request: votca-csg - a systematic coarse-graining toolkit

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659972

--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2010-12-04 18:18:45 EST ---
Christoph: you'll need to make a review request for votca-tools, as well.

You're not a Fedora packager yet, right?


(In reply to comment #2)
> Umm.. 
> - currently (it seems) that if -devel package contains %_libdir/libfoo.so
>   and -libs or main package has %_libdir/libfoo.so.X, rpmbuild adds
>   the dependency libfoo.so.X to -devel subpackage.
>   For example libX11-devel has R: libX11-xcb.so.1 and R: libX11.so.6,
>   despite that libX11-devel contains only ldconfig symlink, header files,
>   pkgconfig files, and man files.

I stand corrected. rpmlint of course complains if there is no explicit require
in -devel. And the explicit require is required in the package review
guidelines.

> - And usually if libraries (%_libdir/libfoo.so.X*) are splitted out
>   into -libs subpackage, the main package has "R: -libs = %version-%release"
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
>   (In this case the "base" package is -libs).
>   e.g. file has "R: file-libs = %version-%release", many others do so

Hmm, Mamoru seems to have a point here. Although,
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
clearly states:
"Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when
absolutely necessary."

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.