On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 19:55 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
Mike A. Harris <mharris(a)mharris.ca> wrote:
> Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> > On 7/10/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday 10 July 2006 05:19, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> >> > So, for example, right now I need to add a BR for the file
> >> > /usr/include/X11/StringDefs.h
> >> >
> >> > what BR: line should I use?
> >>
> >> Whats wrong with BR'ing the file?
> > Well, that's just what I've done and it seems to work; adding that
> > pushed in the correct package in both FC4 and FC5.
> > I imagine there could be problems only if in the future the other
> > required files (I don't think that was the only needed include file)
> > will be found in another package.
> > Thanks a lot
> For the specific case you've given above, buildrequiring the
> file explicitly is definitely wrong. If you do not already
> know which package owns a header file, you should find the file,
> then query rpm to find out which -devel package provides the
> file, and depend on that package.
OK, but is there a way to find out what (virtual) stuff that RPM provides?
That would be the most future-proof way of handling this.
$ rpm -qp --provides /path/to/rpm
Paul.