On 05/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jakub Hrozek<[email protected]> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 05/28/2010 08:59 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: >>> Tested against master and cherry-picked to sssd-1-2. Applies cleanly to >>> both. >>> >> >> Jeff, >> thank you for the patch, but can you describe if you had any problem >> without it? RPM is usually pretty good in determining runtime >> dependencies, so adding explicit Requires: should not be necessary. > > Yes, I tried rpm -Uvh *.rpm on an existing sssd host (1.0.5 + > enumerate=False cpu hog fix cherry picked). The rpm install failed due > to libsemanage.so.6 missing. > > If you are adding _new_ dependencies like this, it is my thought it > should be explicit in the spec file. When I asked on IRC simo said to > go ahead and send the patch out. What do you think? >
Ack. This is something we weren't seeing simply because libsemanage is a default package on Fedora 11, 12 and 13. But if you're building a custom OS from the 'core' packageset (as Jeff is doing), this would be missing. -- Stephen Gallagher RHCE 804006346421761 Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
