On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
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:
>> On 05/28/2010 08:59 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>>> Tested against master and cherry-picked to sssd-1-2. Applies cleanly to
>> 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?
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.
That is correct. My kickstart uses this with a minimal packageset:
Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.