On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: >> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jakub Hrozek<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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.
That is correct. My kickstart uses this with a minimal packageset: %packages --nobase Thanks -- Jeff Schroeder Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix. http://www.digitalprognosis.com _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
