Brian: As I noted above, there appears to be a mismatch between what RPM believes the package provides and what it requires. For the 304.51 driver, the -libs file "provides" libnvcuvid.so.1, and "requires" libnvcuvid.so.1. However, for the 310.19 driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1" but requires "libnvcuvid()(64-bit). The list of what is "provided" by a package and "required" by a package is generated by RPM. It seems that somehow RPM inspects the 310-libs package and gets the list wrong, but got it right on the 304-libs package.
I don't know if there is a way other than the macros to alter the "requires" list to properly state that the 310-libs package requires libnvcuvid.so.1, but that is where things are failing. I hope this helps. George On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Brian Long <briandl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti <pro...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> This is because the macros I used to filter the "required" >> should not be available for centos/rhel. >> >> I have no solution for that... >> >> > Could you add the required macros to atrpms-rpm-config on EL and add a > Build-Requires for the newer version? > > /Brian/ > > > _______________________________________________ > atrpms-devel mailing list > atrpms-devel@atrpms.net > http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel >
_______________________________________________ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
