Am 16.07.2013 22:07, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:25:37PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 16.07.2013 21:18, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
>>> <nod> I think that the best course of action would to rethink UsrMove as
>>> UsrMerge which I would then take to the rest of the FPC as getting rid of
>>> the prohibition on packages listing /bin, /sbin/ lib, /lib64 as the location
>>> in the file. The caveats of package maintainers having to think in terms of
>>> the dependencies and canonical locations instead of whether it was symlinked
>>> on the path on their own system would still apply.
>>>
>>> Posible alternatives for FPC to consider if FESCo decides we really want to
>>> think in terms of /usr/{bin,sbin,[..]} being the canonical correct place and
>>> in the distant future, /bin might go away:
>>>
>>> * Have package maintainers patch upstreams to use /usr/{bin,lib,[..]}
>>> instead of /{bin,lib[...]} (for instance, shebang lines)
>>
>> if UsrMove would have been planned properly RPM/rpmbuild would
>> have the capabilities ot fix this at the buildtime instead
>> insist that anybody rewrites and patches anything
>>
> This is not a rpm or rpmbuild issue
tell that yum and RPM with *repeatly* broken deps
of packages which used "/usr/sbin/ldconfig" what
is the *correct* real path after UsrMove and made
more than once troubles at a random time
translate "Requires: /bin/whatever" to "Requires: /usr/bin/whatever"
translate "Provides: /bin/whatever" to "Provides: /usr/bin/whatever"
and you are done for a lot of cases
______________________
i have the following in a meta-package on any machine since
a year and all this troubles have stopped from one moment
to the next which must not be needed on a overall consistent
environment
Provides: /bin/perl
Provides: /usr/sbin/ldconfig
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
