Re: [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:05 AM, George Galt <[email protected]> wrote:

> Brian:
>
> As I noted above, there appears to be a mismatch between what RPM believes
> the package provides and what it requires.  For the 304.51 driver, the
> -libs file "provides" libnvcuvid.so.1, and "requires" libnvcuvid.so.1.
> However, for the 310.19 driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1"
> but requires "libnvcuvid()(64-bit).  The list of what is "provided" by a
> package and "required" by a package is generated by RPM.  It seems that
> somehow RPM inspects the 310-libs package and gets the list wrong, but got
> it right on the 304-libs package.
>
> I don't know if there is a way other than the macros to alter the
> "requires" list to properly state that the 310-libs package requires
> libnvcuvid.so.1, but that is where things are failing.  I hope this helps.


Could you just use the following inside the .spec?
Autoreq: 0

This would make the RPM rely solely on the "Requires:" entries specified in
the .spec, but it wouldn't search for automatic requirements.

Just an idea.

/Brian/