[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libserf

[Philip Brown]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
<maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
> No dia 18 de Maio de 2010 18:02, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> escreveu:

>> the reason, is that my checking, unfortunately associated the libapr
>> need, as contained in CSWapache2rt.
>>
>> IN theory, as things stand right now, libserf is okay, since we have
>> an existing apach2rt that provides "libapr-1.so.0"
>
> Right, I see it now.  It's something that is on my plate.  When there
> are two packages providing the same soname, checkpkg will expect a
> dependency on the package that provides the one which is first in
> RPATH.  The goal is to have checkpkg say:  "You need to depend on
> either CSWapr or CSWapache2rt".  It's not there yet, it'll require
> some internals refactoring.
>
> Thanks for clarifying.  I'll send out a notification when it gets
> sorted out on the checkpkg side.
>


weeeell.l..  it would actually be better, for you to not change code, perhaps.
This is an "ugly transitional phase", and we'r'e not handling it well,
as far as package planning goes.
best thing would be to get the "correct, new stuff" released asap, and
then have checkpkg determine, through "usual mechanisms"?, [you should
point to *here*], not [here OR here].

At any one time, there should really be only one correct choice, for
newly compiled packages.
Right now, the correct choice is CSWapachert, it seems to me.