bugs, bugs, bugs!

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hi Jeremy,

> No, it's better when the package ISN'T named, but rather the library
> only.
> 
> The automatically generated library dependencies are a Good Thing(tm)
> IMHO.  They certainly aren't causing any problems.  

 I agree with your argument that the generated library dependencies are 
useful. But I don't see why *only* the libraries should be named.

 On systems lacking a complete package database to query, the explicit 
naming of the depended on packages would solve the problem of unknown 
dependencies. Splitting a package and moving a library to a new package 
would possibly leave a redundant package requirement in a depending on 
rpm, but the requirement for the library would be still available. If a 
package maintainer did miss such a library split the redundant package 
requirement would most probably not harm and be updated as soon as 
spotted.

 Consistently mentioning both the required packages as well as the 
libraries would make the rpm db system more self-contained and probably 
solve a lot of dependency problems.

Bye,
Leonard.

--
How clean is a war when you shoot around nukelar waste?
Stop the use of depleted uranium ammo!
End all weapons of mass destruction.