> On 16/07/21 10:39 pm, Simon Matter wrote: >>> And I ask again, how else would you expect the package to satisfy the >>> dependency in chrome for the newer libstdc++? > > And yet you still have not answered this question. Simple answer: you can NOT without breaking RPMs dependency system. > >> And that's where it breaks the rules! It "provides" something that it >> doesn't really provide. That's NOT allowed with RPM because it breaks >> other applications. It breaks the whole meaning of dependency tracking >> of >> the RPM system. That's why the mentioned chrome package has to be >> considered broken. > > It is not broken, it does exactly what it intends to do. It needs to > provide the dependency in order to allow chrome to be installed, and > with the usage of the correct LD_LIBRARY_PATH it allows chrome to run on > the system where otherwise it would not. > > Yes, it violates the Fedora packaging guidelines, it's a good thing it's > not a Fedora package, then. Also please note the very first sentence on > the main page of the guidelines: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > "The Packaging Guidelines are a collection of common issues and the > severity that should be placed on them. While these guidelines should > not be ignored, they should also not be blindly followed." It has nothing directly to do with Fedora but with RPM - and the Fedora folks have rules not to break RPM. For more info see https://rpm.org/user_doc/dependency_generators.html > > Sometimes you have to break some rules to get things to work. In this > particular case the results are worth it for a great many people. > > If you break it, then don't wonder why your system doesn't work as expected. If you break RPMs dependency system by installing broken packages, you get a broken system. Simon