On 03/16/2010 06:07 PM, Till Maas wrote:
I understand the comment from Kevin at "03/16/10 21:11:09"
that it would
also be ok to require potential subpackages once redhat-lsb has been
made more granular.
Given that the purpose of that package was really twofold:
1. To ensure that all the dependencies for an LSB certified system were
in place (which is why it depends on half the repository)
2. To provide the LSB functions and scripts
We could simply divide it into:
lsb-cert (a metapackage which requires half the repository and lsb-scripts)
lsb-scripts (just the functions and scripts)
It's also a good opportunity to drop the unnecessary "redhat" in the
naming scheme.
Thoughts?
~spot