Jon Peatfield wrote:
..snip ... hopefully not too much is snipped off ...
since we can't (easily) change TUVs xorg-x11-* packages, perhaps the xfs
package shouldn't provide 'xfs', would the following patch to the xfs.spec
make sense? Would it cause any problems?
$ diff -bu SPECS/xfs.spec{~,}
--- SPECS/xfs.spec~ 2007-11-12 18:41:10.000000000 +0000
+++ SPECS/xfs.spec 2008-12-11 14:50:26.000000000 +0000
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
#
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The XFS(tm) Filesystem from Silicon Graphics, Inc.
-Name: %{pkg_name}
+Name: %{pkg_name}-filesystem
Version: 0.4
Release: 1%{?dist}
Epoch: 0
ie currently xfs only provides xfs because that is the 'name' of the
package. As far as I can see nothing in the xfs suite depends on that
name so changing the package name ought to just result in different rpm
'names' and provides etc.
Perhaps calling it %{pkg_name}-meta would make it clearer that it is just
a package to pull in the various kernel-module bits.
Does this make sense? I coukld obviously rebuild things with this tweak
but then I'd have to maintain yet another private package, so I'd prefer
to have a fix in the sl version (if a good one can be found).
Hi Jon,
Yes, that makes sense, and actually sounds like a good idea.
I personally think renaming it to "xfs-filesystem" makes the most sense.
Because if it was xfs-meta, people still might think it is dealing with the fonts.
Does anyone else have any ideas or thoughts?
I'll see if I can get this into the testing area tomorrow if others think this
is a good idea.
Troy
--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (630)840-6468
Fermilab ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________
