Optional Dependent RPMs

[Stephen J. Smoogen]

On 7/19/05, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez at ivazquez.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 17:14 -0400, Steve Friedman wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Nichols wrote:
> > >> I find that with firefox-1.0.6-0.1 the Flashblock 1.2.9 extension no
> > >> longer recognizes the whitelisted web sites that should be allowed to
> > >> load Flash content.  The sites are still listed in the Options dialog,
> > >> but their Flash content is being blocked.
> > >
> > > I was able to reproduce this issue using Flashblock 1.2.9.  However, please
> > > note that 1.3.2 is the latest version of Flashblock, and works fine with the
> > > 1.0.6 RPMs as far as I can tell with my testing.  I would advise updating to
> > > Flashblock 1.3.2.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback with the RPM!  It's very much appreciated.
> > >
> >
> > This is a major gripe that I have with RPM.  There is no way for the
> > firefox RPM to specify that the Flashblock RPM needs to be upgraded IFF
> > flashblock is installed.
> 
> Conflicts: Flashblock < 1.3.2
> 

Isnt the problem with this that firefox would need to know about
flashblock and any other optional packages.. The best I could see is
each of the optional packages putting in a

Requires: firefox = 1.0.4

to make sure they only are with their working version.

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator