On 22.04.23 12:39, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Am Dienstag, 18. April 2023, 21:02:59 CEST schrieb Stefan Seyfried:
I did not check the package actually but this just came to my mind. I
have used these macros before to fix stuff like that.
Ahh, I used AutoReqProv as a generic term here.
OK, as I wrote, I did not check the package.
Specifically, I'm using this in the package:
# these are plugins, built as libs and as such should not be mixed up with
their originals
%global __provides_exclude_from
^(%{_libdir}/obs-plugins/.*\\.so.*|%{_libdir}/obs-scripting/.*\\.so.*)$
%global __requires_exclude_from
^(%{_libdir}/obs-plugins/.*|%{_libdir}/obs-scripting/.*)$
%global __requires_exclude ^libcef\\.so$
So this really does not use the big hammer approach ;-)
Unfortunately, I don't remember right now, for what reason the first
__requires_exclude_from was required :-(. The second is obvious, we provide
the chrome embedded framework lib implicitly in the package.
Maybe it was just "let's mirror the provides_exclude in the
requires_exclude"?
I can drop this expression temporarily in a build and wait for feedback.
What do you think, Stefan?
I would try it: remove the __requires_exclude_from, build and check what
additional requires it brings in and if it can still be installed. Maybe
that's already enough to pull most of the dependencies in.
My experience is, that this manual tweaking is always a bit trial- and
error (or, as I like to call the process, "experimental information
science" ;-))
Good luck,
seife
--
Stefan Seyfried
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
_______________________________________________
Packman mailing list
Packman@links2linux.de
https://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
