On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:02:42AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> i had kind of concluded that but, frankly, this strikes me as a
> disturbingly-limited way of satisfying perl dependencies. certainly,
> you can add additional perl modules to your system without going thru
> rpm. but, as you say, the rpm command itself will only check the rpm
> database. so, even if i really do have a given perl module on my
> system, rpm's attitude will be, "i'm sorry, you didn't install that
> module the way *i* want it installed." which means i would have to
> install the module a *second* time, for what i see as no good reason.
>
> is this really the way it works? yuck.
>
If this is your real opinion then
1) why are you bothering with RPM in the first place? package
managers are effective tools for managing software installed
on a system. that includes RPM with all its weaknesses.
2) stuck with another guy's RPM package? use 'cpio2rpm' to
bypass RPM altogether. that is not unacceptable.
3) still want to use this Wiki RPM? either obtain an RPM for
perl modules that you need or create a bogus RPM that has
the "Provides: perl(XXX:YYY)" to satisfy its dependencies.
that is not unacceptable; has been done on production systems
at Cisco.
This is not so much a weakness with RPM as it is with our current
working definition of package management. There is no solid means for
managing software that was installed outside of the process provided
by the package manager. This is a pretty pissy gripe as it is a
common problem for computers in all of their uses.
--
Robert Lehr
(concatenate 'string "bozzio" "@" "the-lehrs" ".com")
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
