On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 08:45:47PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>If i understand the argument that people are making... is that doing
>>it this way... is a burden on 3rd party packagers who have to try to
>>predict when and if Core is going to introduce a libname[Version] for
>>previous versions.
>
>Whenever that happens - when a Core package is renamed like this - the 3rd
>party packagers need to update their spec files to make them buildrequire
>libname[Version]-devel instead.
I thought the proposal included that each package include
Provides: libname = %version
or was that also determined to be problematic?
That would be a way, but I would be less intrusive right now. Just use
foo-devel and have foo-devel require libfoo<major>.
I.e. the libfoo<major> package is nowhere explicitly requested outside
the package itself. That way all packages can be refactored in
asynchronous time w/o changing dependencies of other packages.
Example:
old:
foo-1.2.3-4.src.rpm generates foo-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
foo-devel-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
new:
foo-1.2.3-4.src.rpm generates foo-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
libfoo5-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
foo-devel-1.2.3-4.i386.rpm
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net