-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 28 October 2008, Jeff Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Eric MSP Veith wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > I already learned that much. :-)
> > I was interested in how RPM actually generates this implicit
> > dependency,
> > especially concerning manual pages which are regular files and not
> > links.
> The code that does the dirty deed is buried in lib/rpmds.c rpmdsNew.
Ok, I'll look into it when I find the time, thanks for that hint. I guess
the rpmdsNew(...) function is a good place to start when creating new
implicit dependency generators?
A propos dependencies: How can I add new (explicit) dependency generators
without messing to much around with the RPM sources? (I'd like to add
general support for Ruby to my distribution, creating a ruby-requires and
ruby-provides generator would be a good thing.)
> I do need to change the triggers write up that file paths
> can now be used for triggers. That's on my doco todo++ list,
> right next to your suggestions re INSTALL changes re zlib. Poke
> me until I get it done please, I'm just a lazy schmuck ;-)
I will. ;-) I have my own ideas on how a good packaging system should look
like, and before adapting RPM I was nearly getting started wrting my own.
It was when I discovered rpm5.org and thought something like "hey, this has
a lot of cool features you wanted." Long story short, it is in my own
interest, so I'll certainly whine for more documentation and stuff on a
> > Thanks, I know where to turn it off. Thing is: I *want* it to be
> > turned on
> > and look for a way on how to create better packages. I think this is
> > clearly a bug I introduced when packaging and not a fault with RPM, so
> > disabling the check will cover my bug, not fix it.
> Poifect! Usually I'm being asked the opposite question, how to
> make rpm behave as if unchanged since originally implemented
> in 1997. So try to ignore any gruffness/scrarcasm from me, its
> certainly not intended personally.
No offence taken. :-) I guess I can understand you, actually...
> Your packaging issue, if involving Filelintos dependencies, may
> be conceptual. The policy that the linktos dependency is attempting to
> enforce is
> All symbolic link endpoints should be in packages.
> and you may not be including the package that "contains" the
> end-point in your test transaction.
Ok, I just found the bug in my own package. I was en train calling it a bug
in RPM, but it was just my fault. I was controlling the wrong directory;
running a "find -type l" showed a lot of broken symlinks.
So, one last question to end this: Is there a complete list of the files
(and their pourpose) in /etc/rpm/sysinfo? I'd like to re-package RPM and
add stub config files for all of them containing a one-liner comment what
they are about.
Speaking of which, are the files in the manual/ directory of the source
distribution up to date and complete? And what utility do I need to convert
them to a nicely formatted text file or HTML? (See, I *do* poke you!)
Gee, I always keep bugging you... some day you'll ban me from the ML. ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wed Oct 29 02:02:56 2008