On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 11:02:34PM +0100, Thomas M Steenholdt wrote: > On the other hand, putting /etc/logrotate.d in the filesystem package is > probably not a too much better, since we will still be installing stuff > for a particular log-management package, that may not even be there. > This seems wrong to me. Why? We install a lot of stuff to get extra functionality when $foo is present. > So since we're already discussing this, what if all packages that put > stuff in logrotate.d, do so from a sub-package... httpd-logrotate (or > something)... The -logrotate sub packages should require logrotate and > of-course the main package (httpd in this case). Users can remove > logrotate and with it, all the -logrotate subpackages from cups, httpd > and the rest, but the software will still install and run just fine. But what makes you think users will ask to install all that to begin with? That's just begging for a million "/var filled up" bugzilla tickets. Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve@xxxxxxxxx http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
