On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mercredi 15 décembre 2004 à 07:54 -0500, Robert P. J. Day a écrit :
>
> > note how the list of dependencies doesn't include just other rpms.
> > it specifically includes *individual* *files*, with no regard to where
> > they came from (at least, as i read it). in short, even a stock
> > standard, unmodified fedora core rpm-based system *already*
> > incorporates non-rpm information in its own install process. ergo,
> > your point is irrelevant.
>
> Check again.
> The files are not taken from the filesystem but from the rpm db ie you
> can depend on a file, if it has not been installed via rpm your dep
> won't work.
hmmm ... ok, i stand corrected. but then i'm curious as to why the
list of deps of the "initscripts" package would include both:
/bin/sh
bash >= 2.0
it would seem that, once you have bash >= 2.0, that would kind of
subsume the dependency on a simple bourne lookalike shell, wouldn't
it? in fact, "rpm -qf /bin/sh" explicitly shows that it's part of the
bash package. so why the apparent redundancy? (in fact, the list of
deps for initscripts displays the entry "/bin/sh" five times in
succession. not sure what the point of that is.)
i'm going to think on this some more, but i'm still curious as to how
one would add an extra file like /etc/xinetd.d/cvspserver to the
system, if you want to maintain strict rpm purity. are you seriously
suggesting that one create an rpm whose sole purpose it is to install
a single config file? that's kind of the impression i'm getting here.
rday
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
