On 03/16/2010 06:07 PM, Till Maas wrote: > I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09" that it would > also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been > made more granular. Given that the purpose of that package was really twofold: 1. To ensure that all the dependencies for an LSB certified system were in place (which is why it depends on half the repository) 2. To provide the LSB functions and scripts We could simply divide it into: lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts) lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts) It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the naming scheme. Thoughts? ~spot -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
