On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:05 AM, George Galt <george.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. Could you just use the following inside the .spec? Autoreq: 0 This would make the RPM rely solely on the "Requires:" entries specified in the .spec, but it wouldn't search for automatic requirements. Just an idea. /Brian/
_______________________________________________ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
