On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 19:54, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hi Milo, > > > Most requires refering to libraries (as opposed to packages) > > are generated automatically, which is a Good Thing. It means > > that the requires are still valid even if XFree86-libs were split > > into several packages. > > Right. So I'll concentrate on missing Requires. What about packages > that require a lib but don't mention the providing package? Should I > consider that a missing Requires then? > No, it's better when the package ISN'T named, but rather the library only. Read what you quoted above -- "It means that the requires are still valid even if XFree86-libs were split into several packages." What would happen if you put an explicit Requres: XFree86-libs and then down the line, it got split into say, "XFree86-libs" and "XFree86-oldlibs" and the library you need is in "oldlibs" ? Things would not upgrade nicely, because XFree86-oldlibs might not necessarily get installed. But if you just leave the dependency on /usr/X11R6/lib/somelib.so.0 , then you'll be fine if package names change like that. The automatically generated library dependencies are a Good Thing(tm) IMHO. They certainly aren't causing any problems. --Jeremy -- /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Jeremy Portzer jeremyp pobox com trilug.org/~jeremy | | GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part