packages requiring "httpd" as opposed to requiring "webserver"?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> Hi
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Robert P. J. Day  wrote:
>
>         is that considered good package design? it may be that there are
>       some packages that absolutely need some webserver feature that is
>       provided only by httpd, but is it also possible that some packages are
>       being unnecessarily restrictive? just trying to understand the
>       packaging philosophy here.
>
>
> It is likely that packages that are specifically depending on httpd
> as opposed to just webserver are following older guidelines and
> haven't been updated.  You should consider filing bug reports

  that might be a *lot* of bug reports:

$ repoquery -q --whatrequires webserver| wc -l
20
$ repoquery -q --whatrequires httpd| wc -l
205
$

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================