packages: google-chrome/google-chrome.spec - do NOT add this bogs dep

[Bartosz Świątek]

2010/6/13 Jacek Konieczny <jajcus w jajcus.net>:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 02:51:30PM +0200, Bartosz Świątek wrote:
>> The main reason I've added this is the lack of libjpeg.so.62 in common
>> PLD systems (th, titanium). This lib is provided by libjpeg6.spec -
>
> Not only. Also by packages built from older libjpeg.spec, which could be
> installed together with current libjpeg. And probably by some
> third-party packages containing this library. None of these is available
> in the Th or Ti package repository.
>
> R: libjpeg.so.62, generated automatically by RPM is precise.
> 'R: libjpeg6' will work only for one of the cases described above and
> gives no extra information.
>
> IMHO glen is right – this dependency is not needed and should be
> dropped. 'R: libjpeg.so.62' is enough.

Well, in this case I personally like Patryk's idea the most. Adding a
fake BR: will do the job.

The third-party packages containing libjpeg is not a good reason why
we shouldn't add libjpeg6 as a requirement. It's not the case on open
source packages, it shouldn't be here the case. Chromium has libjpeg
as BR and gets libjpeg autogenerated as R. No one cares that maybe a
third-party app will ship libjpeg...

Anybody against such a fake BR?

-- 
"I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can
coast for a long time. A LOOOOONG time." -Guy Kawasaki