On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 08:20:45AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > 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 > > In this case, the /bin/sh was probably autogenerated by RPM's > dependency detector, whereas the "bash >= 2.0" was added explicitly > in the RPM header to guarantee a version equal or greater than 2.0 > (something that's harder to autodetect). i eventually twigged on that. makes sense. > > 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. > > There's kinda an exception for files in /etc -- many files there > aren't RPM managed. But certainly to add a file under /usr [*] I > would. agreed. on to other, more exciting things. i'm satisfied to let this thread die. rday _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
