Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/)
-   -   Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}? (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/337944-should-name-javadoc-package-require-name.html)

Peter Lemenkov 03-08-2010 12:20 PM

Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?
 
Hello All!

I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues,
and one of them draws my attention - explicit "Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}" in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java
experience is rather small, I would like to ask you, dear List,
whether %{name}-javadoc sub-packages really must require %{name}?

--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Ville Skyttń 03-08-2010 04:42 PM

Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?
 
On Monday 08 March 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues,
> and one of them draws my attention - explicit "Requires: %{name} =
> %{version}-%{release}" in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java
> experience is rather small, I would like to ask you, dear List,
> whether %{name}-javadoc sub-packages really must require %{name}?

No, unless they actually require something from the main package, which would
be unusual.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

"Chen Lei" 03-08-2010 04:49 PM

Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?
 
From package guideline


┬*

Requiring Base Package

Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:┬*%{name} =┬*%{version}-%{release}. Usually, subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.



┬*
ňťĘ2010-03-09┬*01:42:40´╝î"Ville┬*Skytt├Ą"┬*<ville.skytta@iki .fi>┬*ňćÖÚüô´╝Ü
>On┬*Monday┬*08┬*March┬*2010,┬*Peter┬*Lemenkov┬*wr ote:
>>┬*Hello┬*All!
>>┬*
>>┬*I┬*just┬*found┬*that┬*many┬*java-related┬*packages┬*have┬*packaging┬*issues,
>>┬*and┬*one┬*of┬*them┬*draws┬*my┬*attention┬*-┬*explicit┬*"Requires:┬*%{name}┬*=
>>┬*%{version}-%{release}"┬*in┬*some┬**-javadoc┬*packages.┬*Since┬*my┬*java
>>┬*experience┬*is┬*rather┬*small,┬*I┬*would┬*like ┬*to┬*ask┬*you,┬*dear┬*List,
>>┬*whether┬*%{name}-javadoc┬*sub-packages┬*really┬*must┬*require┬*%{name}?
>
>No,┬*unless┬*they┬*actually┬*require┬*something┬* from┬*the┬*main┬*package,┬*which┬*would┬*
>be┬*unusual.
>--┬*
>devel┬*mailing┬*list
>devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Ville Skyttń 03-08-2010 05:32 PM

Should %{name}-javadoc package require %{name}?
 
On Monday 08 March 2010, Chen Lei wrote:

> Requiring Base Package
>
> Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
> dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually,
> subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a
> fully versioned dependency.

It says "usually". But anyway I think the main of this is that *if* the
subpackage requires the main package in the first place, the dependency should
usually be fully versioned; I don't think its intent is to encourage pulling
artificial dependencies out of thin air.

By the way, the same applies to -devel packages so the "must" is a too strong
expression for them although they usually actually do require the main
package. But when they don't, there is no reason to add any dependency to the
main package, versioned or not. (And yes, when they do, it's good to mandate
the dependency to be fully versioned.)

Would not hurt to rephrase this in the guidelines to avoid confusion.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.