On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Martin Baehr <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Actually my poit was, if we already have our custom needfoo, which depends on libfoo:rpm to build, we need to take care that we change the buildreq to libfoo:devel. So customizing dependancies of things already customized packages depend on needs some extra care. > 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/ -- Mark Trompell Foresight Linux Xfce Edition Cause your desktop should be freaking cool (and Xfce) _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
