On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:45:14 +0100, Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > enrico.scholz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said: > > > I could live with it. > > > This was too early: changes above will not work; when the package, > > shadow-utils and fedora-usermgmt are in the same transaction, fedora-usermgmt > > can be installed *after* the package which would be wrong. > > Actually, my thinking was that fedora-usermgmt should not depend on the > useradd from shadow-utils but completely replace it. Of course, it means you > have to repackage the original useradd in fedora-usermgmt... > > Then you have something like: > > * 'fedora-usermgmt' gets the following headers: > |+ Provides: shadow-utils This is even less predictable at installation-time. For resolving virtual dependencies currently "shortest package name wins". While useradd from shadow-utils and fedora-usermgmt are equivalent if not customised, they are different when customised, and beyond that there's much more inside the shadow-utils package. You try to hide the dependency, which moves the missing "Requires: fedora-usermgmt" into nowhere, so admin must take care even more than before. > * every package which creates users will contain something like > | Requires(pre): shadow-utils > | ... > | %pre > | /usr/sbin/useradd ... > > -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
