RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>


From: Eric MSP Veith <eveith@wwweb-library.net>
Date: Wed 29 Oct 2008 - 02:02:47 CET
Message-Id: <200810290202.51561.eveith@wwweb-library.net>
Hash: SHA1


On Tuesday 28 October 2008, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Eric MSP Veith wrote:
> > 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 
regular basis.

> > 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. ;-)

		-- Eric
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wed Oct 29 02:02:56 2008
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.