On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:42:48PM +0100, Tim Waugh wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 02:53:29PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: [...] > > Is there a reason why the trigger is done that way round -- in the > > _cups_ specfile rather than the samba one? Or why we can't ship the > > extra CUPS backend in a separate 'bluez-utils-cups' RPM which puts > > it directly into /usr/lib/cups/backend/ instead of making the > > symlink in a trigger script? Or any of the other possibilities? > > That certainly sounds like the best thing to do for new packages. It > would be best to keep the knowledge of that backend in the package > that provides it. I wasn't very clear here: I meant that any of these alternatives are better than putting it in cups.spec. :-) Having a separate subpackage (which requires cups) sounds like the best approach. Tim. */
Attachment:
pgpe4EYqUqGmv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
