I was pleased to find that rpm seems to do it as right as it can... it's auto-requires are files, not rpms. So we have less to worry about there.

Jeremy

At 06:31 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Jason B. wrote:

> Yes... but these issues are present now.  If foo.rpm depends on
> something that isn't there, it won't install... ever.  If you depend on
> a file that isn't there, it won't install... ever.  This is a packaging
> issue, not a dependency issue.
>
> We're worried about getting things installed that are legitimately (and
> rightly) required but not in the list already.  That's what
> auto-dep-checking can help with.

EXCACTLY.

I think this is a nice, concise statement of what auto-dependency is
trying to solve.

--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/


------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel



------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel

Reply via email to