On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 07:52:38AM +0100, Mark Trompell wrote: > But if we earlier decided that we can do a better needfoo than fedora > does. We need to double check buildrequires. because needfoo has > libfoo:rpm and might get trouble rebuilding when we later on provider > our own libfoo and libfoo:rpm isn't available in our groups anymore > (but may still in our search paths).
as long as the fedora packages are binary there shouldn't be any buildrequires i think, so this should not matter at all. it only gets interesting if we want to rebuild source rpms and then cause the fedora source rpm to use our needfoo to build. however once we build rpms from source i understand that the packages will have the traditional :runtime :lib :devel splits anyways. so the factory for the source rpms will have to cope with that. either because we repackage the binaries before that (instead of encapsulating them like now) or the factory will have to handle looking in both :rpm and :devel to satisfy build requirements. greetings, martin. -- eKita - the online platform for your entire academic life hackerspace beijing - http://qike.info -- chief engineer eKita.co pike programmer pike.lysator.liu.se caudium.net foresight developer realss.com foresightlinux.org unix sysadmin trainer developer societyserver.org Martin Bähr working in china http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/ _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
