Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
A lot more. A least, expat-devel, pango-devel, zlib-devel, X11-foo-devel,
iconv-devel, etc... See the list below. Under SuSE and Mandrake, many of
these libraries have different naming schemes.
I may be wrong on this one, but I don't think there's any need to list these dependencies in the BuildRequire line. For example, by adding gtk2-devel, we implicity add these packages:
[fmonkey@wrty Development]$ rpm -qR gtk2-devel
XFree86-devel
atk-devel >= 1.0.0-1
glib2-devel >= 2.2.0-1
gtk2 = 2.2.4
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libdl.so.2
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
libglib-2.0.so.0
libgmodule-2.0.so.0
libgobject-2.0.so.0
libm.so.6
pango-devel >= 1.2.0-3
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[fmonkey@wrty Development]$
In order to get gtk2-devel installed, these packages would also have to be installed. Also, any packages that those listed packages depend on would also have to be installed. Thus, by putting just gtk2-devel on the BuildRequires line, we implicity pull in the whole dependency tree for that package.
Since RPMs have automatic binary dependencies, looking at the SRPM rebuild log
is enough for me ... All libraries should display "yes" or "sys".
What do you mean by automatic binary dependencies? I thought that RPM dependencies were enforced by the "Requires:" line in the spec file.
ahp