On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:38:54 +0100, Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > (ahem... I kinda promised myself I'd stop feeding this thread... sigh) > > bugs.michael@xxxxxxx said: > > If you don't make it a requirement, it becomes unreliable at installation > > time, since it may or may not be available prior to a package which would use > > it in its scriptlets. > > I probably don't understand what you mean here. > > If fedora-usermgmt is a complete replacement of useradd, it will of course be > named useradd and the package doesn't even need to know it exists. The > package must only require something called useradd, same as in Core. > > The *manager* installing the package needs to know if he wants fedora-usermgmt > functionality on the system, and in this case install it and configure it > properly before installing further packages. > > But once it's installed, new packages being installed shouldn't be able to > tell the difference. Only the manager. > > Or what did I miss? A link in the dependency chain. A way to pull in automatically a package which (assuming we stick to the current mechanism implemented by Enrico) provides the 'setup(fedora-usermgmt)' capability and hence the defaults chosen by the admin. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
