Adam H. Pendleton wrote:
> Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
>
>>A lot more. A least, expat-devel, pango-devel, zlib-devel, X11-foo-devel,
>>iconv-devel, etc... See the list below. Under SuSE and Mandrake, many of
>>these libraries have different naming schemes.
>>
>>
> I may be wrong on this one, but I don't think there's any need to list
> these dependencies in the BuildRequire line. For example, by adding
> gtk2-devel, we implicity add these packages:
Hi Adam, Jean-Michel,
I think Adam is right regarding dependencies, it's not usefull (and can
get you to mistake if packages change) to specify all these
dependencies. FYI Debian's dependencies I use are these (I cut debian
specific things)
Build-Depends: libgtk2.0-dev, gcc, g++, libjpeg62-dev, libpng-dev (>> 1.2.0) | libpng12-dev (>> 1.2.0) | libpng2-dev ,
libtiff3g-dev
Isn't there a way to specify expressions like "or" (the '|' in debian) in rpms specs files ?
That's what I used to solve the problem of package names changing from stable to testing and unstable.
> What do you mean by automatic binary dependencies? I thought that RPM
> dependencies were enforced by the "Requires:" line in the spec file.
concerning this I find that RPM is too "agressive" while looking for
dependencies. I'm not an RPM expert but when I do rpms packages I always
do a first shot as is (without specifying anything) and I look to the
result. Then I specify directly in the spec file not to look for
dependencies and hard code them by hand. The "magic" flag is :
AutoReqProv: no
(http://linux.tnc.edu.tw/techdoc/maximum-rpm/rpmbook/node310.html).
Regards,
Raphaël
