On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> James Yonan wrote:
> >>I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
> >>saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
> >>
> >>The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
> >>
> >>============================ fix ===============================
> >>%if "%{_vendor}" == "MandrakeSoft"
> >>%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: liblzo1-devel >= 1.07}
> >>%{!?without_lzo:Requires: liblzo1 >= 1.07}
> >>%else
> >>%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: lzo-devel >= 1.07}
> >>%{!?without_lzo:Requires: lzo >= 1.07}
> >>%endif
> >>============================ snip ==============================
> >>
> >>Either way, there would still be an issue with Mandrake as I see that
> >>the lzo package of SuSE 9.1 provides "lzo" not "liblzo".
> >
> >
> > The problem I have with this patch is that it assumes that Mandrake will
> > continue to follow the broken behavior. The ideal solution would be one
> > which doesn't break when Mandrake gets around to using the same standard
> > LZO RPM spec which everyone else is using.
> >
>
> Yeah, probably the best solution. However, I see that they have been
> calling it liblzo1 since their 8.1 distro, and, technically, it is a
> library?
True, but SuSE and RH/Fedora both use "lzo" and "lzo-devel" as the
provider names. That seems reasonable, as prepending a "lib" to the
provider names for all libraries would render most RPM .spec files
incompatible.
Any guidance from LSB?
James
