Supporting 'm' would be nice of course. It was left out of the initial
implementation due to lack of time/energy to think about how to properly
implement it, rather than a "never" decision.
The implicit user/group creation is indeed something that would cause problems
when an explicit entry exists, so I think adding hard requires for both the
user and the group is needed. Alternatively we'd need some special logic for
dependency resolution of these items, where we'd favor a user/group with an EVR
over one without it.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2816#issuecomment-1857461753
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2816/1857461...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
