[Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Re: Are circular dependencies ok?

[Rex Dieter]

Jesse Keating wrote:

>> or is there some implicit requires in -devel's lib*.so symlink (which
>> doesn't show in 'rpm --requires' or 'rpm --provides')?
> 
> It's a require that is generated at build time by following where
> the .so symlink points to and requiring that library file.
> 
> $ rpm -qp
> --requires
> /srv/pungi/dev21.3/7.90/Fedora/i386/os/Fedora/lockdev-devel-1.0.1-11.fc7.i386.rpm
> warning:
> /srv/pungi/dev21.3/7.90/Fedora/i386/os/Fedora/lockdev-devel-1.0.1-11.fc7.i386.rpm:
> Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 liblockdev.so.1 <snip>
> 
> $ rpm -qp
> --requires /srv/pungi/cache/lockdev-devel-1.0.1-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> warning: /srv/pungi/cache/lockdev-devel-1.0.1-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm: Header
> V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2
> liblockdev.so.1()(64bit)
> <snip>
> 
> See how one is the non arch specific liblockdev.so.1 and the other is
> arch specific?  ockdev.so.1' and the only thing that provides that is
> the i386 build.  Likewise the only thing providing the
> liblockdev.so.1()(64bit) is the x86_64 build of it.

Thanks Jessie, I think I've got my brain wrapped around this now.

-- Rex