On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:17:26AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 12.02.2014 21:28, Eric Blake wrote:
> >In general, the 'libvirt' metapackage should pull in all subpackages.
> >Fix this for the wireshark subpackage created in commit f9ada9f.
> >
> >* libvirt.spec.in (Requires): Add dependency.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > libvirt.spec.in | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/libvirt.spec.in b/libvirt.spec.in
> >index d3e6048..2d57c71 100644
> >--- a/libvirt.spec.in
> >+++ b/libvirt.spec.in
> >@@ -428,6 +428,9 @@ Requires: libvirt-daemon-driver-storage = %{version}-%{release}
> > Requires: libvirt-daemon-driver-network = %{version}-%{release}
> > Requires: libvirt-daemon-driver-nodedev = %{version}-%{release}
> > %endif
> >+ %if %{with_wireshark}
> >+Requires: libvirt-wireshark = %{version}-%{release}
> >+ %endif
> > %endif
> > Requires: libvirt-client = %{version}-%{release}
> >
>
>
> Aah, I see you've already pushed this one. However I have doubts
> about it. The wireshark plugin is meant for developers, not ordinary
> users. With this patch:
>
> yum install libvirt
>
> drags wireshark into the dependencies. Me, as a libvirt developer,
> am comfortable with it. The ordinary libvirt users who just creates
> dozen virtual machines may be not.
>
> But I'm open to persuasion :)
I tend to agree - I don't think we should be pulling in the wireshark
RPM, so I'd suggest we revert this patch.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list