Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Have you tried to make a fake src.rpm package that "provides" this 'libfoo' and
>>> install it ? It didn't need to install anything just tell to the rpm library that it
>>> "provides" 'libfoo'.
>>
>> Normally, I leave the building straightforward.
>>
>> Of course, I can also climb to the roof, use the fire exit, arrive at
>> the backyard and find my way out somehow from there.
>
> Not sure I get the analogy. You are apparently working with 2
> uncoordinated rpm builders, so your choices are to get the original
> authors to coordinate the provides/depends, fix it yourself, or ignore
> the brokeness.
I can only do no. 3 -- take things as they are and try to make the best
of it.
The uncoordinated rpm builders are Redhat and especially Intel.
Removing the build deps from runtime is possible. Only Google finds you
a lot of nonsense. Plain bullshit, old stuff from yesteryear, or stuff
from the future (CentOS wise).
To recap: I'm in the middle and still want to build a sensible rpm for
openmpi with intel:
%define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
%define __find_requires %{nil}
Order is important. After that, '__find_requires' can even be made into
a script, that falls back on '/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-requires' and
filters out what is disturbing.
Hey! I love rpm! Whenever I feel real bad, I turn to rpm! (And then
start to ask for help ...)
:)