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

Re: Useless OpenEXR split



2007/9/17, Rex Dieter <rdieter math unl edu>:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Why does the -libs package require these tools?
> > The .spec doesn't answer that question.
> >
> > In the other direction, there's a hardcoded strict dependency in
> > addition to the automatic soname deps, creating a circle:
> >
> > $ rpm -qR OpenEXR|grep EXR
> > OpenEXR-libs = 1.4.0a-5.fc8
> >
> > Conclusively, the split is useless.
>
> It's cleaner wrt multilib, ie no OpenEXR.i386 in x86_64 repo.
But there is a problem if OpenEXR-libs.i386  Requires main.i386
There is at least two solutions if we want multilibs compatibility :
1 - Use main and -devel (with bins and libs in main ), that's mean
when a user install a package.i386 that requires OpenEXR.i386, then
2 - Disable libs to Requires main, then apps that links to OpenEXR
will need to add Requires: OpenEXR (which will have only bins ).

For now i don't know if  app are requiring binaries to works... But is
there any problem to uses .x86_64 binaries from a i386 program ?
Actually when both arch for bin package  are installed, preference
goes to x86_64 version on x86_64 system...
(unless i'm wrong )

Thought there is an 1.6 update of openexr...
Rex, do you mind we can have an update ?

Nicolas (kwizart )

> (same goes for jasper).
>
> -- Rex
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>


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