From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wright Subject: Re: git-core-arch: Missing dependency Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:26:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20051112012612.GD5856@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> References: <200511111446.jABEk6QM023362@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl> <7vy83vnl7r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <4374E0EF.2020801@op5.se> <7vu0ejm30l.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <43754083.4090501@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Andreas Ericsson , git@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wright X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Nov 12 02:26:53 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EakA1-0005KN-Qr for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:26:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750919AbVKLB0Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:26:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750918AbVKLB0Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:26:24 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:44772 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750821AbVKLB0X (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:26:23 -0500 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jAC1QCnO005397 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:26:12 -0800 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jAC1QCRX007644; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:26:12 -0800 Received: (from chrisw@localhost) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jAC1QC88007643; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:26:12 -0800 To: "H. Peter Anvin" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43754083.4090501@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.55__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.127 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: * H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com) wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >Andreas Ericsson writes: > >>Just to be anal; > >>Requires doesn't usually include the %release,... > > > >Obviously both you and Chris (who did the part you are quoting > >for us) know RPM spec a lot better than I do, and I see two > >experts contradicting with each other. It could have been just > >an oversight, or it might have done deliberately --- I cannot > >judge myself, so I punt here. I'll remove "-%{release}" when I > >hear Chris says he agrees with you. > > You can do it either way. It's a matter of the strictness of the > binding. If you put %{version} there, then it has to come from the same > upstream release; for %{version}-%{release} it has to come from the same > SRPM, i.e. usually from the same build. > > In this case I think %{version}-%{release} is appropriate. Yeah, I was being conservative. In reality, the release is rarely bumped, so it's probably not critical either way. thanks, -chris