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.
Description: PGP signature