On Wed, 17 May 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
> I must agree with Jeff. MS and RH are both guilty of this in a big way.
> Look at some of the ridiculous dependancies RH puts into some the RPMs
> they ship! They don't *need* those dependancies, since I've built several
> of those packages from source and never had them! So why create them that
> way?
Well, I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but there is often a
method to Red Hat's madness.
For example, my desktop workstation is a RHL 6.1 system. I wanted to grab
the upgrade to Pine 4.21, which comes with RHL 6.2. I was surprised to see it
required some Kerberos support RPMs. Why? Well, because Red Hat added the
Pine Kerberos patches to the RPM spec, and the runtime loader won't load a
program if a linked shared library is missing. However, I checked the source
RPM, and if you build the package without Kerberos installed, it won't apply
the Kerberos patches. So Red Hat actually did a fairly good job, in this
example.
Red Hat is *far* from perfect, but I think a lot of people give them a
harder time then they deserve.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| "The only day wasted is that in which we have not laughed." |
| -- Chamfort |
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
