On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 15:52 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote: > 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. OK, that's what I've done. A new set of bluez packages is in my yum repo at ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/people/dwmw2/fc2-mac/ (That's for FC2/ppc; i386 users can rebuild if they want). -- dwmw2
