On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:42:48PM +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 02:53:29PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
[...]
Is there a reason why the trigger is done that way round -- in the _cups_ specfile rather than the samba one? Or why we can't ship the extra CUPS backend in a separate 'bluez-utils-cups' RPM which puts it directly into /usr/lib/cups/backend/ instead of making the symlink in a trigger script? Or any of the other possibilities?
That certainly sounds like the best thing to do for new packages. It would be best to keep the knowledge of that backend in the package that provides it.
I wasn't very clear here: I meant that any of these alternatives are better than putting it in cups.spec. :-)
Having a separate subpackage (which requires cups) sounds like the best approach.
Tim. */