Description of problem:
GConf2-devel's gconf-2.0.pc file declares a private dependency on dbus-1:
Requires.private: ORBit-2.0 dbus-1
but does not depend on dbus-devel, which provides it.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. yum install GConf2-devel
2. yum remove dbus-devel
3. pkg-config --list-all
step (3) fails due to pkg-config not finding dbus-1
step (3) fails due to dbus-1
This is partially a result of pkgconfig update now showing Requires.private. This bug has hit me as well:
Does the bug appeared with a recent pkgconfig update ?
Yes, it did. At least that's what I made out of the build logs.
Also, please note that I fixed the sdlmame build by adding dbus-devel to BR, but you can reproduce the issue easily by removing it.
(In reply to comment #4)
> Also, please note that I fixed the sdlmame build by adding dbus-devel to BR,
> but you can reproduce the issue easily by removing it.
So why didn't you fixed your build with adding dbus-devel as BR of sdlmane instead ? (Same for Michel's package).
Because it never needed it in the first place.
(In reply to comment #0)
> Description of problem:
> GConf2-devel's gconf-2.0.pc file declares a private dependency on dbus-1:
> Requires.private: ORBit-2.0 dbus-1
> but does not depend on dbus-devel, which provides it.
The real question is, does compiling an application that links against GConf libraries require ORBit and dbus headers to succeed? If not, then these dependencies are bogus and should be removed.
In my case, the compiled application does not depend on ORBit and dbus, but I'm not sure whether this holds generally.
Either way, GConf2-devel should either depend on ORBit and dbus, or stop declaring a dependency on them in the .pc file.
Is there any conclusion what should be actually done? Any solution concerning gconf2 is better than randomly adding BR: dbus-devel in packages.
It seems to be fixed in Rawhide already, but not in any F10 update. GConf2-devel in Rawhide requires pkgconfig(dbus-1).
It is fixed in Rawhide due to the fact that rpm there picks up pkgconfig requires (or provides, I'm not sure) automatically. F-10 needs to be fixed the old way.
More than half a year and no response by the official maintainer?
This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora
'version' of '10'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life.
Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this
bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version,
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.
The process we are following is described here:
Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.