On Sunday 13 June 2010 10:24:38 Jacek Konieczny wrote:
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:
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
2010/6/13 Jacek Konieczny jaj...@jajcus.net:
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
2010/6/12 Jacek Konieczny jaj...@jajcus.net:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 02:29:05PM +0200, glen wrote:
Author: glen Date: Sat Jun 12 12:29:05 2010 GMT
Module: packages Tag: HEAD
Log message:
- do NOT add this bogs dep
Requires:
2010/6/12 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com:
Removing this R: breaks the readability of the error and causes
unnecessary confusion.
I'm afraid glen removes this R: only to get his own comfort using this
browser on deprecated Ac systems - which are officially not maintained
by the PLD team.
2010/6/12 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com:
it's obvious to me that when a user wants to install google-chrome and
gets the (for him) cryptic error message that a strange libjpeg.so.62
is required and poldek couldn't find it (because it's not in the
repository), we have to decrypt this
2010/6/12 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org:
2010/6/12 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com:
Removing this R: breaks the readability of the error and causes
unnecessary confusion.
I'm afraid glen removes this R: only to get his own comfort using this
browser on deprecated Ac systems - which
