On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 19:19 +0200, Jakub Filak wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 17:47 +0200, Martin Milata wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Martin Milata <mmilata(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> libreport.spec.in | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libreport.spec.in b/libreport.spec.in
> index ba3465b..f6a6a76 100644
> --- a/libreport.spec.in
> +++ b/libreport.spec.in
> @@ -40,12 +40,10 @@ BuildRequires: asciidoc
> BuildRequires: xmlto
> BuildRequires: newt-devel
> BuildRequires: libproxy-devel
> -BuildRequires: btparser-devel
> +BuildRequires: satyr-devel
Shouldn't we restrict satyr version somehow? Perhaps
like we require libreport package in abrt spec file?
I propose these changes:
Requires: satyr >= 0.4
BuildRequires: satyr-devel >= 0.4
If you agree, I will commit the proposed changed.
OK, 'Requires: satyr >= 0.4' is not necessary because rpmbuild
automatically adds a dependency on libsatyr.so.1()(64bit)
to all packages which needs it. But satyr's soversion is out of date and
doesn't reflect changes in ABI between 0.3 version and 0.4 version. So,
I'll add the require line and we can remove it once satyr starts correct
soversioning.
> %if %{with bugzilla}
> BuildRequires: xmlrpc-c-devel
> %endif
> -##satyr migration:
> -#BuildRequires: satyr-devel
> BuildRequires: doxygen
> Requires: libreport-filesystem = %{version}-%{release}
> # required for update from old report library, otherwise we obsolete report-gtk