On 2010-09-21, at 2:51 PM, Alexander Kanevskiy wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 15:36, Roger WANG <[email protected]> wrote: >> Alexander Kanevskiy <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:39, Roger WANG <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Alexander Kanevskiy <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> Just out of curiosity why do we have that in spec ? what is the reason ? >>>>> >>>>> # >> macros >>>>> AutoReqProv: no >>>>> # << macros >>>> >>>> it pulled in some dependencies we don't want, from some binaries built >>>> but excluded from the package. >>> >>> In that scenario it's better either to remove those binaries after >>> "make install" or use something like auto requirements filtering >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering >>> >>> Another thing, .spec files does not include any %exclude directives in >>> %files section. Which excluded binaries you're talking about ? >> >> I don't remember that clearly. > > Can you remove "AutoReqProv: no" hack and figure out ? Because in my > opinion, current state of .spec is not something that we want to have > in MeeGo. >
This is probably not a hack, the above would be needed if fenneq for example is building using internal nss which would conflict with system nss since rpm would think it is provided by fennec instead of the nss packages. So that needs to be there, otherwise fennec will be installed as the Provider of nss (or whatever). Anas >> And thanks for your comments. I'll review this issue when I get a >> chance. >> >> -- >> Roger WANG Intel Open Source Technology Center >> > > > > -- > br, Alexander Kanevskiy > MeeGo Core Release Manager > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-packaging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging _______________________________________________ MeeGo-packaging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
