Alexander Skwar wrote: >�Stefan van der Eijk� sagte am 2002-02-15 um 17:09:13 +0100 : > >>* Fri Feb 15 2002 Stefan van der Eijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.3.11-2mdk >> >>- BuildRequires >> > >Sorry for mailing twice, but I should learn to call diff corectly... > >Anyhow, still some questions. Why did you remove the versioned >BuildRequires on gdk-pixbuf-devel, why have the BuildRequires for >gtk+-devel and gnome-libs-devel be completely dropped and why have the >Requires: on gdk-pixbuf >= 0.7.0, gtk+ >= 1.2.5, gnome-libs >= 1.0.59 be >commented out? > Because these BuildRequires are redundant. Other packages in the BuildRequires list need them, and will pull them in.
These are the BR for the current (1.3.12-1mdk) package: flex gcc libglade-devel scrollkeeper ImageMagick gdk-pixbuf-devel >= 0.7.0 gtk+-devel >= 1.2.5 gnome-libs-devel >= 1.0.59 according to the output of my scripts: http://61.10.207.130/build/contrib/urpmi/alpha/multi-gnome-terminal-1.3.12-1mdk.src.rpm.txt these packages can be removed because they are pulled in by another package: ### Remove following redundant BuildRequires: gnome-libs-devel , libgnome32-devel ### Remove following redundant BuildRequires: gtk+-devel , libgtk+1.2-devel libgnome32-devel is pulled in by libglade0-devel libgtk+1.2-devel is pulled in by libgdk-pixbuf2-devel So there is no need to put them in the BuildRequires. Unless there is a REAL need to specify the required version of these packages. I'm wondering what the effect of this is going to be. I'd prefer to put versioning only if it's REALLY required (it really can't be built with another version, etc). Otherwise things are going to get overly complicated and harder to maintain when time passes. On the other hand, if you put a version requirement on the libglade-devel and gdk-pixbuf-devel won't that then garantee that you have the correct version of gtk+-devel and gnome-libs-devel installed (because they get pulled in)? We could possibly also add version requirements on the other packages that are installed due to these BuildRequires: ghostscript-fonts freetype libstdc++2.10 libpng3 libnetpbm9 libjpeg62 libxml2 freetype2 libtiff3 netpbm libgimpprint1 liblcms1 XFree86-libs libMagick5 XFree86-xfs chkfontpath urw-fonts VFlib2 ghostscript ImageMagick libxpm4 flex gcc-cpp kernel-headers glibc-devel make libbinutils2 binutils gcc libtiff3-devel libnetpbm9-devel XFree86-devel libORBit0 ORBit zlib1-devel libpng3-devel libungif4 libungif4-devel libaudiofile0 db1 imlib libimlib1 libglib1.2-devel libgtk+1.2 libgtk+1.2-devel libjpeg62-devel libgdk-pixbuf2 gdk-pixbuf-loaders libgdk-pixbuf-xlib2 esound libesound0 libgnome32 gnome-libs libgdk-pixbuf-gnomecanvas1 libgdk-pixbuf2-devel libxml libglade0 db1-devel libgnomeprint15 libaudiofile0-devel libesound0-devel libglade-gnome0 libxml-devel libbonobo2 indent libORBit0-devel gnome-print libimlib1-devel libgnome32-devel oaf liboaf0 libglade-bonobo0 libGConf1 libgda0 GConf libgnome-db0 libglade-gnome-db0 libglade0-devel libscrollkeeper0 scrollkeeper But wouldn't that be a bit too much? (anybody any comment on this)? >Should a package have no BuildRequires/Requires and just rely on the >library names? > See above.
