Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 452352 - lcms-libs requires lcms?
Summary: lcms-libs requires lcms?
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: lcms
Version: 10
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andreas Bierfert
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2008-06-21 08:44 UTC by Ville Skyttä
Modified: 2009-03-02 13:50 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-03-02 13:50:33 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ville Skyttä 2008-06-21 08:44:58 UTC
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 14:47:20 UTC
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 15:27:00 UTC
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 17:58:10 UTC
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 2008-11-26 02:27:10 UTC
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 13:50:33 UTC
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

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.