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

Re: bugs, bugs, bugs!



Hi Alan,

> >  Are redundant and missing (Build)Requires in src rpm's considered 
> > RFE's or should they be reported at this stage?
> 
> I report them as bugs, especially ones that build different packages as
> a result.

 That answers my question concerning missing (Build)Requires. Tetex src 
rpm is a possible candidate here.

 But what about redundant (Build)Requires? And what about my question 
what consitutes to a redundant Requires? Fe on RH 7.3

$ rpm -qR XFree86-devel
XFree86-libs = 4.2.1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
ld-linux.so.2
libc.so.6
libdl.so.2
libICE.so.6
libSM.so.6
libX11.so.6
libXext.so.6
libXpm.so.4
libXt.so.6
/bin/sh
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)

 But libICE.so.6, libSM.so.6, libX11.so.6, libXext.so.6, libXpm.so.4 
and libXt.so.6 are all provided by XFree86-libs = 4.2.1. What is the 
rationale behind mentioning all the libs specifically? Is this really 
necessary or should they be considered redundant?

 And what about the 4 libc.so.6 entries? What is the value of the extra 
entries?

Bye,
Leonard.

--
How clean is a war when you shoot around nukelar waste?
Stop the use of depleted uranium ammo!
End all weapons of mass destruction.




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