Hi,
Just found that on some minimal system it is not possible to remove some
rpm subpackages.
* Current state
# rpm -qa | grep rpm
rpm-libs-4.14.2.1-4.fc30.1.x86_64
rpm-4.14.2.1-4.fc30.1.x86_64
python3-rpm-4.14.2.1-4.fc30.1.x86_64
rpm-build-libs-4.14.2.1-4.fc30.1.x86_64
rpm-sign-libs-4.14.2.1-4.fc30.1.x86_64
python3-rpm is required by dnf so it is really hard to have manageable
system without that part (however in extreme cases it is still possible to
drop completely dnf).
Problem is that on minimal system rpm-sign-libs and rpm-build-libs
theoretically should be not needed, however because python module in
current form combines in single package all its three DSOs:
# rpm -ql python3-rpm | grep so$
/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/rpm/_rpm.cpython-37m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/rpm/_rpmb.cpython-37m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/rpm/_rpms.cpython-37m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
it causes that it is not possible to use only core rpm package management
on minimal system.
I think that it would be good to split python3-rpm into python3-rpm{,b,s}.
* Proposal
In current form keeping separated rpm-plugin-selinux is a bit pointless so
that part IMO should be joined with rpm-build.
As well probably rpm-plugin-ima could be merged with rpm-sign.
With that changes total number of generated packages will be the same and
will make IMO much more sense in case of non-devel/build systems and
systems which are used for signing packages.
Comments?
kloczek
--
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH <http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH>*
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
