> Yep. Sorry for not mentioning. There's likely some slightly better
> means than AutoReqProv: no that should be done, but AutoReqProv
> is one way to disable dependency extraction.

yes, well, as long as the dependency extraction leads to package
names, which have no guarantee of being consistent across distros
(and I have *lots* of examples of where they arent), it does need
installing.


> Better would be to insturment custom lsb-find-provides and lsb-find-
> requires with actual tests of, say, permitted file paths and content,
> and emit     Requires: lsb iff the tests pass. E.g. many FHS tests
> could easily be done automagically on every build.

yes, this would be nice.

> No matter what, all this stoopid configgery to produce a LSB
> "standard" package could be simplified to a --lsb option in rpm if
> anyone cared to ask me to implement. 
> 
> No one has.

we talked about that once, so I'd say I have

> But I do ask the question:
>     What use is rpm as a LSB "standard" format if everything in
>     rpmbuild needs disabling? Isn't cpio or tar or ... a better
> choice than a lobotomized rpmbuild? 

some people seem to think so, but they're archive formats, not
packaging formats - if "payload only" is okay, then by all means
(and some developers do prefer that).