Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492221 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[email protected]> 2009-05-29 11:38:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Fedora review dssi-vst-0.8-2.fc10.src.rpm 2009-05-29 > Thank you for the review! > ? the wine subpackage owns /usr/lib/dssi which is also owned by the > dssi package - should the wine subpackage require dssi instead? > There is a subtlety here. I first thought of doing it that way but then I realized that it would be problematic on x86_64. On x86_64, when someone installs dssi-vst, the dssi-vst.x86_64 dssi-vst-wine.i586 packages will be installed. If I put a Requires: dssi on the dssi-vst-wine package, it will pull dssi.x86_64 during installation, and dssi.x86_64 does not own /usr/lib/dssi. The only solution I found was to own /usr/lib/dssi by dssi-vst-wine.i586 so that we have all directories owned in all archs. Please let me know if you find a better solution. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dssi-vst Short Description: DSSI plugin wrapper for VST plugins Owners: oget Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
