Is the Print Support and OpenOffice Yes/No really honored

Matheesha m.weerasinghe at
Sun Sep 28 20:35:58 UTC 2003

Doh! I should have tried "rpm -e" before mailing the list and I now know
why. I installed the admin tools and system tools which installed
redhat-printer-config. I had to remove the following packages in this
order to get rid of cups.


As for the cups-libs it seems to be linked to a few apps I kinda like to
hang on to so it will have to remain.

rpm -e cups-libs
error: Failed dependencies: is needed by (installed) samba-common-3.0.0-5rc1 is needed by (installed) ghostscript-7.07-10 is needed by (installed) libgnomeprint22-2.3.1-2 is needed by (installed)
gnome-vfs2-extras-0.99.10-3.1 is needed by (installed) gnome-vfs-extras-0.2.0-7 is needed by (installed)
printman-0.0.1-1.20021202.14 is needed by (installed) ghostscript-7.07-10
[root at pc2-hem12-3-cust67 root]#

I'd like to hang on to the ghostscript and samba client utilities. I was
kinda surprised that cups-libs will be linked to samba-common and
ghostscript. Correct me if I am wrong but it may be possible to "build
and compile " ghostscript and samba with printing support turned off? If
so that would mean been able to remove cups-libs and still have
ghostscript and samba on the system. Well at least samba.



On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 21:11, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:14:40PM +0100, Matheesha wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am asking this as I've just seen that some are experiencing issues
> > with disabling the firewall. While I was installing Fedora Test 2 I
> > chose not to install printing support and yet cups is installed and
> > is active. Both Cups and the Cups libraries are installed.  I am a
> > newbie to Linux so I am not sure if Cups was installed as it may be
> > required for some other reason.
> If you installed Gnome, you get Cups. Gnome is dependent on
> Cups. Perhaps the Gnome RPMs could be re-done to use Cups if it is
> present but not require it?
> To determine the dependency chain, try uninstalling packages you don't
> want, and follow the chain of complaints. E.g:
> rpm -e <package>
> > The same goes for Open Office. I chose not to install any
> > Office/Productivity apps and yet Open Office libraries are
> > installed.
> I believe that this is a bug, but I haven't filed it yet. I spotted it
> in Beta 1, but am waiting to confirm it on Beta 2.
> There is no reason for the OOo libraries to be installed other than
> for OOo itself. I can't guess why there are three separate packages,
> unless it is to keep the package size down to an average of 35 MB
> each. I find this one particularly egregious because they account for
> some 230 MB installed, and my test machine has 1.6 GB of usable disk
> space.

More information about the users mailing list