[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Short RPM question



On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Carwyn Edwards wrote:

> Tom Diehl wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Aurelien Bompard wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Hi all
> >>
> >>When I saw that an update for slang was available, I issued an apt-get
> >>install slang, and thought that it would pull slang-devel too. It didnt:
> >># rpm -qR slang-devel
> >>slang = 1.4.9
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >You are getting confused.
> >  
> >
> 
> Nope, you are :-) The

OK, I see. :-)

> 
> "I issued an apt-get install slang, and thought that it would pull 
> slang-devel too."
> 
> .. is a red herring. He already has slang _and_ slang-devel installed 
> and expected the dep resolution on "apt-get install slang" to force an 
> upgrade of slang-devel too. Because the dep in slang-devel is only on 
> the version and not the release of slang it didn't force the update.

Sounds like a packaging problem to me.

> The question was - should the slang-devel "Requires:" specify just a 
> version dep or both version and release? Peronally I think you're better 
> off with a full epoch:version-release dep between the devel->parent as 
> quite often build time options are enough to mangle autogenerated 
> development material.

I think in this case you are correct, although I thought (obviously
incorrectly) that the automagic dep generator in rpmbuild would have taken
care of such a case.

Tom


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]