-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan van der Eijk wrote:
| Due to this symlink being in the package.
|
|   $ rpm -ql libcups1-1.1.19-0.9mdk | grep \.so$
|   /usr/lib/libcups.so
|
| In cups.spec I found the following:
|
|   # This ".so" link is in the main package but not in the devel package
|   # because it is needed for the function overloading in XPP and QTCUPS
|   %{_libdir}/libcups.so

Huh!

| Wouldn't it be better to move the \.so$ file to the -devel package and
| let xpp and qtcups Require libcups1-devel or add -avoid-version to it?
| Then the issue is put with the packages that are causing the problem.

If it's me, I would never touch such files, since Till knows the ins and
outs of cups, and he should know what to do in this situation, better
than everybody else. You are likely breaking his packages without asking
him.

~From what I observed, yes, %libdir/libcups.so is used for development,
but it's likely used by other userland apps. You discarded one important
point: if some development files are needed for normal operation of user
programs, then it should be put into main package instead of -devel
package. IDL files serves as good example.

The most important reason of splitting main/devel package is that, most
people are USERS, and they don't need devel packages. The only case they
want devel packages is when they wanna be developers or they want to
compile things that need these devel packages. Otherwise, there is no
reason to split package anymore -- the programs in main package don't
have full functionality, or simply won't run. That doesn't make much
sense, right?

I'd suggest you to *promptly* revert the change, and ask Till now, to
make sure if his comment about libcups.so is right. In such kind of
situation, Till knows the most about it, and his decision must be respected.

Best,
Abel


| | regards, | | Stefan |


- -- Abel Cheung Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+2PvUQVLh8cZxhv8RAvb3AKDoOrVn6kixJj1Wm59WZZ60hhlfggCfTPLd
uy/RgZF1rltMmmk3fm9Q+Y4=
=xGec
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Reply via email to