Bug 452352 - lcms-libs requires lcms?
lcms-libs requires lcms?
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: lcms (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Andreas Bierfert
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-06-21 04:44 EDT by Ville Skyttä
Modified: 2009-03-02 08:50 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-03-02 08:50:33 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Ville Skyttä 2008-06-21 04:44:58 EDT
I just got a lcms -> lcms/lcms-libs update on F-8, and found that both lcms-libs
and lcms were pulled in.  This is fine.  But I was surprised that I can not
remove lcms (and leave lcms-libs installed) after the update.

Does lcms-libs really require lcms?  That dependency is hardwired in the
specfile still in devel.  The above desirable lcms->lcms+lcms-libs upgrade
feature should already be taken care of by the Obsoletes which is in -libs.
Comment 1 Jon Stanley 2008-06-21 10:47:20 EDT
Changing version to 8 since that's where this problem was encountered. Also, the
package guidelines call for fully versioned Requires on subpackages
Comment 2 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2008-06-21 11:27:00 EDT
Previously, lcms has both binaries and libaries within lcms. so while updating
it to be mutlilibs compliant, I think I need to keep the binaries requirement so
if for some reasons a package use lcms-devel and expect the binaires to be also
present, they will be provided (same for install time and run time).

The only problem I could expect is if we need another ABI incompatible version
of the lcms-libs. But in this case they won't be a need to have also the
binaries. Our guideline say that if such compat libaries are needed, they have
to be provided with a compat-lcms package (which will not have the binaries).

Is there any problem with having the binaries as a mandatory Requirement ?
(expect for saving few space )?

@Jon Stanley
I'm not sure, I have understood well:
Do you mean I need to add (from the main package):
Requires:       %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release} ?
Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2008-06-21 13:58:10 EDT
Every dependency that isn't really a dependency is a packaging bug.  In addition
to a little space taken, the unneeded executables are unnecessarily in
everyone's $PATH, and the main lcms package brings in dependencies that
lcms-libs does not have (at least libjpeg, libtiff, zlib).

If lcms-devel requires the executables to be present, by all means, add the
dependency there.

At this point I think the right thing to do is to post to fedora-devel about the
split and tell maintainers of dependent packages to see if they need to add
explicit "Requires: lcms" (ie. if their package uses some of the executables),
and prepare to drop the main package dependency from -libs for I'd say F-10. 
And add a comment to the specfile why the dependency is there for the time
being.  Actually I think these steps should have been done _before_ the split
package hit any branches.

Moving version back to Rawhide - perhaps it's better to leave older distros
alone because as you say there's a window of backwards incompatibility which
shouldn't be needlessly inflicted on released distro versions.
Comment 4 Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 21:27:10 EST
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle.
Changing version to '10'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
Comment 5 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2009-03-02 08:50:33 EST
sorry for the late answear, I've hit a bug which prevented me to evaluate the fix in time for F-10.
The fixed with http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1212896

mail send in fedora-devel ml along with the related maintainers cc'ed

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.