On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 09:15:09AM +0100, Diana Bosio wrote: > If it really sounds logical to you, then probably you might be able to > solve this problem: in a village where the only barber available shaves > only men that are not able to shave themselves, who shaves the barber? Uh, clearly some men, hopefully including the barber _are_ able to shave themselves. Setting up strawmen doesn't help. > bash does not provide /bin/sh nor /bin/bash, at least not on my system, as > you can see below. We can maybe start making a case for the config(*) line, Err, yes it does. $ rpm -q --whatprovides /bin/bash bash-2.05b-38 I don't believe --provides gives you files. Do this instead: `rpm -ql --provides bash`. > I am not sure. In any case it might be valid and predictable for you and > concerning bash, but I have a plethora of rpms providing and requiring the > same library, and it is not a system library that they might require in a > post install script, but simply a wrong way of building the rpm... You're making a weird circular argument. First you say that bash is a special case and there's nothing else like it, and then you say that there's lots of other examples, but that they are -- by your original argument, all wrong. > Once again, how do I distinguish from a circular dependency that is "not at > all confusing and quite logical" (according to you) and a bug that I have > to report? Simple -- circular dependencies aren't bugs. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
