James Yonan wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
James Yonan wrote:
I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
============================ fix ===============================
%if "%{_vendor}" == "MandrakeSoft"
%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: liblzo1-devel >= 1.07}
%{!?without_lzo:Requires: liblzo1 >= 1.07}
%else
%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: lzo-devel >= 1.07}
%{!?without_lzo:Requires: lzo >= 1.07}
%endif
============================ snip ==============================
Either way, there would still be an issue with Mandrake as I see that
the lzo package of SuSE 9.1 provides "lzo" not "liblzo".
The problem I have with this patch is that it assumes that Mandrake will
continue to follow the broken behavior. The ideal solution would be one
which doesn't break when Mandrake gets around to using the same standard
LZO RPM spec which everyone else is using.
Yeah, probably the best solution. However, I see that they have been
calling it liblzo1 since their 8.1 distro, and, technically, it is a
library?
True, but SuSE and RH/Fedora both use "lzo" and "lzo-devel" as the
provider names. That seems reasonable, as prepending a "lib" to the
provider names for all libraries would render most RPM .spec files
incompatible.
Any guidance from LSB?
No, LSB seems to deal with more basic issues of the O/S. What you could
consider the "primatives" of a GNU/Linux systems contents. Nothing as
far reaching as naming conventions for packages other than the minimum
requisite packages to start & run a basic Linux system, RPM
construction, etc.
--
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
email at http://openhardware.net?file=emailcomment.php
any ReplyTo direct email will disappear (blackhole).
----------------------------------------------------
