Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > 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 > +1 -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
