Matt Wilson writes: > > lsbappchk should be compiled with lsbdev and require only 'lsb >= x.y' > and the rpmlib internal requirements.
I agree lsbappchk and lsblibchk packages should be compiled with lsbdev and should also be renamed as you suggest. We'll need to get appchk and libchk registered with lanana - does anyone know if thats up an running yet? I havent' been able to reach www.linuxbase.org or www.lanana.org a few days now. At this stage I don't think we that we should be putting the lsb requirement into the packages. AFAIK no distribution has that supplied yet so everyone would have to install with --nodeps. btw /bin/sh seems to end up being a requirement for lsb-distribution-test even with AutoReqProv set to 'no'. Is there any way to remove this requirement (lsb will fulfill it)? Chris -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group Canberra, Australia > Should we clean up the lsb package namespace by always using a -? > Currently we have lsbappchk, lsb-distribution-test, and lsblibchk. I > would suggest lsb-appchk and lsb-libchk. > > lsb-distribution-test needs to have Requires: lsb >= 1.1 (it won't run > without lsb runtime) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ls]$ rpm -qpR lsblibchk-1.1.1-1.i386.rpm > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > ld-linux.so.2 > libc.so.6 > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) > > ditto appchk. > > Cheers, > > Matt
