On 05/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jakub
Hrozek<jhrozek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/28/2010 08:59 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>> Tested against master and cherry-picked to sssd-1-2. Applies cleanly to both.
>>
>
> Jeff,
> thank you for the patch, but can you describe if you had any problem
> without it? RPM is usually pretty good in determining runtime
> dependencies, so adding explicit Requires: should not be necessary.
Yes, I tried rpm -Uvh *.rpm on an existing sssd host (1.0.5 +
enumerate=False cpu hog fix cherry picked). The rpm install failed due
to libsemanage.so.6 missing.
If you are adding _new_ dependencies like this, it is my thought it
should be explicit in the spec file. When I asked on IRC simo said to
go ahead and send the patch out. What do you think?
Ack.
This is something we weren't seeing simply because libsemanage is a
default package on Fedora 11, 12 and 13. But if you're building a custom
OS from the 'core' packageset (as Jeff is doing), this would be missing.
--
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/