Robert Schiele wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:27:13PM +0200, Lukas Ocilka wrote: >> We are asking for your opinion whether it even makes sense to invest >> (waste) some time in this area ;) > > You should consider one big warning here: If you have only one license package > you can just add licenses there and basically never delete one. This ensures > that with a license package that is at least as recent as your other most > recent package you can always fulfill any dependencies. If you do > licenses-base you might want to remove licenses there as well and move them > into the other licenses package but as soon as you start removing licenses > from there you might break older packages installed on a system. > > Sure you can find solutions for all these problems but in my opinion it will > just produce a bug mess and source of inconsistencies.
That's a good point, thanks.
On the other hand it always depends on the current solution:
Possibly buggy solution
-----------------------
* licenses-base.rpm provides 'licenses-base'
* my package requires 'licenses-base'
Possibly working solution :)
-------------------------
(already mentioned on this mailing-list)
* licenses-base.rpm provides
'licenses/md5/005e9765ce1a51f0aab9b2e14a785474'
...
'licenses/md5/0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3'
'licenses/md5/18ba770020b624031bc7c8a7b055d776'
...
'licenses/md5/fd6c32a44ff3cf3efd167ddb697b9eb1'
* my package requires 'licenses/md5/0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3'
Even if the license is moved anywhere else, the dependency is solved
automagically ;) (if "Provides" is changed as well).
Lukas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
