Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Actually ocaml-pcre-devel is the one which requires pcre-devel. I
> don't think this is against any guidelines, or if it is, it shouldn't
> be.
No, that makes sense. Your message wasn't clear about that.
>> Instead, the software MUST be patched to dlopen the fully versioned
>> so from the runtime package instead.
>
> If I understand what you mean, the software does this already. The
> bug is that there's no explicit (or implicit) dependency to tell RPM
> that it's doing this.
There needs to be at least a Requires: pcre. I guess a Requires on the exact
soname being dlopened would be more robust, but then you need to take care
of that pesky '()(64bit)' multilib suffix.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
