On 08/09/2011 06:40 PM, Farkas Levente wrote: > hi, > as i already write there're a lots of dll which still not provided in > the filesystem package. now i like to solve this problem. > first of all generate a file standard-dlls from wine with: > > ls -1 /usr/lib64/wine/fakedlls|grep ".dll" >standard-dlls > > imho it'd be a good practice to only update this file time to time and > don't modify anything else.
This is probably a good idea. Maintaining the list by hand isn't very fun. > the comment in the spec is very good about the problems: > ============================================ > # Note about 'Provides: mingw32(foo.dll)' > # ------------------------------------------------------------ > # > # We want to be able to build & install mingw32 libraries without > # necessarily needing to install wine. (And certainly not needing to > # install Windows!) There is no requirement to have wine installed in > # order to use the mingw toolchain to develop software (ie. to > # compile more stuff on top of it), so why require that? > # > # So for expediency, this base package provides the "missing" DLLs > # from Windows. Another way to do it would be to exclude these > # proprietary DLLs in our find-requires checking script - essentially > # it comes out the same either way. > ============================================ > > the question which one we choose? > the first (current ones) or the second (modify find-requires)? > i prefer the second (cleaner spec file) but we can do the first too. > what's you opinion? I'd go with the first option, just because that's the way we currently do things. I don't see much advantage doing it one way or the other, so it is probably better to just keep doing it the way we currently are, to avoid confusing people. Moreover, starting doing it differently would break compatibility with older packages, which is something I'd like to avoid. -- Kalev _______________________________________________ mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mingw
