On 18 July 2011 22:37, Luc Menut <lme...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 13/07/2011 12:41, Ahmad Samir a écrit : >> >> On 13 July 2011 12:34, nicolas vigier<bo...@mars-attacks.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Ahmad Samir wrote: >>> > ... >>>> >>>> Using pkgconfig provides looks like an optimal option, we could start >>>> now, whenever we touch a spec we change to the pkgconfig provides, and >>>> gradually all the specs will be adapted. >>>> >>>> And for the packages that don't have .pc files we add: >>>> Provides: %{name}-devel = %{version}-release >>>> Provides: lib%{name}-devel = %{version}-release >>>> >>>> or we could add them to all packages whether they have .pc files or >>>> not, but still always use pkgconfig() provides as BR in our specs. >>> >>> I think it's better to use %{name}-devel for packages which don't have >>> pkgconfig files. And keep pkgconfig() provides for packages with .pc >>> files. >>> >>> >> >> As spturtle said, conformity/consistency is good, i.e. all our >> packages should have the same Provides, that's better in the long run, >> and less confusing for new (and old too) packagers. >> > > Couldn't we have a macro for this? It would help in consistency, and will > avoid typo. > We could use it like this: > %mkdevelprov %{name} %{version} > > regards, > Luc >
Good point. There'll be corner cases, but it should work for the majority of packages. -- Ahmad Samir