[Mono-devel-list] rpm packaging from CVS

Brett Lentz (Excell Data Corporation) a-blentz at microsoft.com
Fri Oct 8 18:49:56 EDT 2004

Thanks for the update.

However, I'm curious about the potential problems with how these specs
define the Provides and Requires elements.

In every spec, they Provide a 'ximian-foo' package, yet the Requires
simply indicates package 'foo'.

For example, fedora-2-i386-mono.spec says:

	%package -n mono-runtime-devel 
	Provides:	ximian-mono-runtime-devel 

And fedora-2-i386-gtksourceview-sharp.spec says:

	BuildRequires:	mono-runtime-devel

Won't this have rpm complaining about missing/wrong dependencies at
install time because the semantics aren't consistent?


There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
    ---Ken Olsen, President, Digital Equipment, 1977
-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Mak [mailto:duncan at ximian.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:27 PM
To: Brett Lentz (Excell Data Corporation)
Cc: Bryan Smant; mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
Subject: RE: [Mono-devel-list] rpm packaging from CVS

On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 19:45 -0400, Duncan Mak wrote:
> I'll update the packagers page ASAP.

The packagers page has been updated.

Duncan Mak <duncan at ximian.com>

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list