[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: util-linux missing from build root



On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:13:44 +0200 (CEST), Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> > /usr/bin/foo can move to /usr/local/bin/foo
> 
> Not in our packaging.

But making it impossible can't be the goal either.

Since we package for specific releases of a distribution, I'd rather
recommend more use of the %check section in spec files at build-time.

> > Requiring file paths is dangerous when conflicts between packages
> > are permitted and shortest pkg name wins in yum depsolving.
> 
> So? You can make the same argument for perl modules, library names,
> etc (with more reason as semi-compatible forks are legion)

Sure. Just that file path Requires aren't automatic, except for script
interpreters.

We don't have virtual Provides for executables in distribution $PATH,
e.g. exec(grep)

> > and requiring a single file does only guarantee
> > that you get the single file -- if you need many more files, would
> > you require each of them explicitly?
> 
> If you need many commands that have no special reason to be in a
> single package and in fact migrate from package to package requiring
> them instead of putting the current container name is the right thing.
> 
> If you need many commands that are closely associated requiring just
> one of them will pull the others just as effectively as the package
> name.

The guidelines talk about _guarantees_, though. The probability that
"Requires: /usr/bin/mount" pulls in related tools via util-linux is
high but no guarantee. Just recently, /usr/bin/setarch got moved from
one package to another, which then got renamed.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]