> >
> > put /usr/inlcude/* and libbz2.so in the devel package and the erst in the
> > main package. and all should work fine. a --rebuild with the src rpm in
> > /incoming should put all bzip2 dependency problems to rest.
> >
> >
> > still, even before the so lib, it seems strange that bzip2 would require
> > bzip2-devel. programs shouldn't require and /usr/include/*.h file to build?
> > (chmou sucks?)
>
> it takes more space to have two rpm headers than only one.
yes, but that's ONLY in the spec file. or you might have a slighly
bigger rpm database becasue you have one package more, if you decide to
install the bzip2-devel package. but: imagine having main stuff and
devel stuff merged for everything...not very nice. it's not too
important for us who build stuff all the time but whne you think abou
the average mandrake use who just need kde and gnome to do some web
browssing with netscape...i don't want some unnecessary files (even
though they are of no harm) in /usr./include and /usr/lib (.so symlinks
for linking) i'm not sure why chmou decided to merge the 2 together,
because the main program should _never_ _never_ _ever_ require the
head4r (.h) files in /usr/inclue.
(chmouel sux) take for example, popt. if you do rpm -ql popt-devel you
will see a similar thing to bzip2-devel. just an .a file, a /usr/include
file and a /usr/lib symlink for linking , so if rpm has it then why not
bzip2 ??
i would think that putting the development stuff in a separate package
would be niceer, much better than putting everything together. no point
in installing the stuff if you don';t need it ..and anyway rpm supports
separate packages from one spec so why not??
let's forward this to cooker and see what everyone thinks, and see who
wins? ;-)
cookers: do you think htat bzip2 should have main and devel splitted up
into separate pacakges, or come in one single package?
--
printf("blah\n");
// Geoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
// PGP key available on request.
