Hi Jeremy,
No, it's better when the package ISN'T named, but rather the
library
only.
The automatically generated library dependencies are a Good Thing(tm)
IMHO. They certainly aren't causing any problems.
I agree with your argument that the generated library dependencies are
useful. But I don't see why *only* the libraries should be named.
On systems lacking a complete package database to query, the explicit
naming of the depended on packages would solve the problem of unknown
dependencies. Splitting a package and moving a library to a new package
would possibly leave a redundant package requirement in a depending on
rpm, but the requirement for the library would be still available. If a
package maintainer did miss such a library split the redundant package
requirement would most probably not harm and be updated as soon as
spotted.
Consistently mentioning both the required packages as well as the
libraries would make the rpm db system more self-contained and probably
solve a lot of dependency problems.
Bye,
Leonard.
--
How clean is a war when you shoot around nukelar waste?
Stop the use of depleted uranium ammo!
End all weapons of mass destruction.