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

Re: Debian (and RedHat) source package format (was Re: Qt and other)

On Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 12:13:52AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > You put normal (binary package) dependancies in the spec file. I've not seen
> > source dependancies in spec files, and I see nothing in the rpm
> > documentation about it.
> > 
> > Hm, since srpm's are just rpm's, I guess they could have dependancies,
> > though..
> Frankly, almost every source dependency is of the form "to compile this
> source you need that binary package".  Sometimes, in debian's case,
> they'd be -dev packages, but that's not an exception to the general case.

The new version of mikmod requres tetex to be able to "make install".  I bet
it's not the only program that does either.  Kinda annoyed me since I hate
the whole tetex package.  I'll live I'm certain.  Though the author might
not after I had to install it....  <g>

> In fact, I think that any exceptions to this general case should be
> classified as a bug.  [Yeah, you have to work around this issue for
> bootstrapping a new os, but bootstrapping is a tangential issue.]

Packages need what the upstream author makes them need.  You can't call it a
bug because someone made a package that uses some oddball tool to compile.

Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgpIjLvToU2h7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: