Re: Overeager cleaning of -devel provides

Matthew Dawkins schreef op wo 31-07-2013 om 13:56 [-0600]:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Per =C3=98yvind Karlsen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>         2013/7/31 Matthew Dawkins <[email protected]>
>                =20
>                =20
>                =20
>                 On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Per =C3=98yvind Karlse=
n
>                 <[email protected]> wrote:
>                         2013/7/31 Matthew Dawkins <[email protected]>
>                                 Well virtually providing glib2-devel =3D
>                                 %{EVRD} was incorrect as well.
>                                =20
>                         Why?=20
>                 Why not glibX-devel or glibN-devel or glibPOK-devel?
>                =20
>         It probably would've been glib-devel if it weren't for that at
>         the time of this provides was introduced, there most likely
>         already was a glib-devel already for glib 1.x..
>        =20
>        =20
>         There's still not anything wrong with glib2-devel..=20
> It's wrong and no diff than glibPOK-devel.=20
>=20
>                 =20
>                =20
>                                =20
>                                =20
>                                 And there is still a cross arch
>                                 provides left, but not really
>                                 preferred I guess by many.
>                                =20
>                                 %{_lib}glib2.0-devel =3D %{EVRD}
>                                =20
>                         That won't give same name on different archs
>                         and is btw. also redundant as it's the exact
>                         same as provided from it's package name.=20
>                        =20
>                 No it doesn't give the same name, but the macronized
>                 name is the same.
>                =20
>         It expands to the same name as the package name, so it won't
>         be added twice. =20
>                =20
>                 Ie Conflicts: %{_lib}glib2.0-devel < 1:2.36.3-2:2013.0
>         The reason for why you need to make it canonical is because in
>         your example it lib64glib2.0-devel won't conflict with ie.
>         libglib2.0-devel, which is what you'd want in situation where
>         ie. files (that would be shared between libglib2.0-devel &
>         lib64glib2.0-devel were both installed) has been moved.
> Why are you expecting to install both libglib2.0-devel &
> lib64glib2.0-devel together?
Because as an application dev developing on a 64-bit workstation, I
might want to be able to support two archs?

[snip]