On Apr 16, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008, devzero2000 wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Ralf. Only a curiosity on OPENPKG packaging.
>>
>> Why most package have:
>>
>> AutoReq:      no
>> AutoReqProv:  no
>>
>> I doesn't like this never. OTHO i like automatic dependency  
>> resolution .
>>
>> Sure, it is also true that i am lazy
>
> The auto-dependency resolution in RPM is mainly a Linux-specific or
> at least system-specific thing. It automatically adds dependencies to
> system shared libraries, etc. This is both useless and unnecessary  
> for a
> self-contained cross-platform software distribution like OpenPKG.  
> There
> all(!) dependencies have to be within the software distribution _ONLY_
> and not to any artefacts outside of it (like system libraries). Hence
> all dependencies are explicitly configured and no implicit ones are
> required. So, don't compare OpenPKG's use of RPM with the RPM use of a
> usual operating system vendor. OpenPKG has completely different goals
> and hence different constraints. OpenPKG is about using RPM for  
> managing
> an independent software stack on top of an operating system, but not
> about managing an operating system itself...
>

I understand the distinction quite well.

But there are times that "independent" needs to import (or export)  
certain
information that crosses the OS <-> managed set boundary.

How do you handle, say, libc.so.6 dependencies? Implicitly with, say,
a targeted collection? That works sure.

The reason for asking is that I'm looking for ways that /etc/rpm/sysinfo
(one of 2 approaches tried by rpm, the other is packages to carry
native OS Provides:) might be improved.

73 de Jeff