rpms/itext/devel itext.spec,1.13,1.14

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Panu Matilainen  wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Panu Matilainen  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Orcan Ogetbil schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>> +%ifarch x86_64 ppc64
>>>>> +Provides:
>>>>> %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.jar.so()(64bit)
>>>>> +%else
>>>>> +Provides:       %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.jar.so
>>>>> +%endif
>>>>>
>>>>>  %description
>>>>>  iText is a library that allows you to generate
>>>>> @@ -141,6 +147,9 @@
>>>>>  #
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> - From my point of view, this is a workaround, which is only good until
>>>> rpmbuild may be fixed.
>>>
>>> Fix what? What exactly is being worked around here?
>>>
>>>       - Panu -
>>>
>>
>> This is an issue with the rpmbuild's automatic dependency generation.
>> Here's the story:
>>
>> itext provides (rpm -q --provides itext):
>>
>> itext-2.1.4.jar.so()(64bit)
>>
>> which is in the directory /usr/lib64/gcj/itext/ . Note that this is
>> not a standard library path.
>> Meanwhile, pdftk requires (rpm -qR pdftk):
>>
>> /usr/lib64/gcj/itext/itext-2.1.4.jar.so()(64bit)
>>
>> Notice the full path, which was not in the Provides of itext. Because
>> of this path, the pdftk RPM won't install, complaining about unmet
>> dependencies.
>
> Well sure that requires looks pretty screwed, something that rpm should not
> ever generate.
>

Why does it look screwed? Why are full paths on Requires/Provides "bad"?

>> Therefore we put an additional Provides:
>> /usr/lib64/gcj/itext/itext-2.1.4.jar.so()(64bit)  on itext.
>
> I dont see pdftk in Fedora, other that it has been there and is now marked
> dead.package. What pdftk package are we talking about here?
>

Sorry, I should have given this link:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485641

>>
>> Is there a better solution?
>
> Fix the busted requires instead?
>
>        - Panu -
>

Yes, that was the other option (not sure why you call it "busted"
though).  I asked a few people and the common advice is to not lie to
RPM. If it asks a full path, give it a full path.
So what will be the benefit of hacking the Requires of pdftk?

Orcan