On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 22:07, Buchan Milne wrote: > On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, DEGAND Nicolas wrote: > > > Le Samedi 30 Novembre 2002 19:55, vous avez �crit : > > > > OK. It wanted only 3 or 4 dependencies, so it was intriguing. I suppose the > > dependencies are fouled up. > > > > NO! The root cause is you guys mixing cooker and stable. It often works, > but you are guaranteed to have something break this way. Why do you think > people build RPMs for the stable releases, if the cooker RPMs would always > work??? Laurent could stop wasting his time building KDE for 8.x, I could > stop wasting my time building samba for 8.x.
Isn't the point of the dependencies list inside an RPM that the RPM can explicitly, at the time of install, let the user know what extra libraries and versions are needed in order for the RPM to work correctly. If a RPM installs without any dependency errors, then the user should be quite confident that the software will function correctly. If it does not, then the dependency list of the RPM is broken (either the dependency is not explicitly mentioned, or the method of getting implicit dependencies is incorrect), and should be fixed. -- Chris Picton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tangent Systems
