On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 16:17 -0600, Matt Taggart wrote: > Well I think something good came out of this firedrill and that is I think > it may be wrong for alien to be adding library dependencies when converting > LSB rpms. Adding those dependencies might be correct for the system that > alien is being run on, but could be wrong for a different version of that > system (example: converted on etch, broken on sarge) or a different system > (example: converted on ubuntu, broken on debian). I also think it's more > than just versioned depends, but the dependencies themself, since the > package namespaces aren't necessarily the same.
If an LSB package can be properly recognized, I agree. The LSB model, after all, is that you not depend on individual items but on the overall LSB-required provides, which are supposed to imply the correct functionality is present on the system (lsb-core and lsb-graphics). > > I thought that was determined by seeing the appropriate lsb depend > > (lsb-core these days). > > Yeah that's how it works (still using "lsb" not "lsb-core" maybe a bug > needs to be filed?). "lsb" was only correct for 1.x, since the module splitting it's "lsb-core" at a miniumum, so that would be the thing to check for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
