2010/6/13 Jacek Konieczny <[email protected]>: > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 02:51:30PM +0200, Bartosz Świątek wrote: >> The main reason I've added this is the lack of libjpeg.so.62 in common >> PLD systems (th, titanium). This lib is provided by libjpeg6.spec - > > Not only. Also by packages built from older libjpeg.spec, which could be > installed together with current libjpeg. And probably by some > third-party packages containing this library. None of these is available > in the Th or Ti package repository. > > R: libjpeg.so.62, generated automatically by RPM is precise. > 'R: libjpeg6' will work only for one of the cases described above and > gives no extra information. > > IMHO glen is right – this dependency is not needed and should be > dropped. 'R: libjpeg.so.62' is enough.
Well, in this case I personally like Patryk's idea the most. Adding a fake BR: will do the job. The third-party packages containing libjpeg is not a good reason why we shouldn't add libjpeg6 as a requirement. It's not the case on open source packages, it shouldn't be here the case. Chromium has libjpeg as BR and gets libjpeg autogenerated as R. No one cares that maybe a third-party app will ship libjpeg... Anybody against such a fake BR? -- "I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LOOOOONG time." -Guy Kawasaki _______________________________________________ pld-devel-pl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-pl
