https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283539
--- Comment #10 from Sandro <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Sandro from comment #9) > As mentioned above, revisiting the spec file, I believe the following line > will not work: > > Requires: (paraview-%{pypi_name} if paraview) > > I looked at the MPI flavored packages and they do not depend on it as I > initially thought. However, all flavors do depend on `paraview-data`. So, I > will be changing that to: > > Recommends: (paraview-%{pypi_name} if paraview-data) > > I believe using `Recommends` makes it clearer that the plugin is optional. This turns out to be more tricky than I had hoped. In the paraview-meshio sub package, I have: Requires: paraview This is wrong for the same reasons as above. But here I don't see a common ground. It would need to be something along the lines of: Requires: (paraview%{?_isa} or paraview-mpich%{?_isa} or paraview-openmpi%{?_isa}) That would do the right thing if any flavor of ParaView is already installed. But what would happen if someone decided to install the plugin with `dnf install paraview-meshio`? Maybe more a corner case, but I'm intrigued nonetheless. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283539 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202283539%23c10 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
