From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Hering Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a "make rpmball" target Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:31:50 +0100 Message-ID: <20140303173150.GB26596@aepfle.de> References: <1393858780-11628-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> <20140303162358.GA23543@aepfle.de> <5314AF0C.6080708@eu.citrix.com> <5314AF8A.2070301@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5314AF8A.2070301@eu.citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: Ian Jackson , Dario Faggioli , Ian Campbell , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Mar 03, George Dunlap wrote: > "remove another named package(s) when this package is installed" -- I think > that's a bit more than we want in the rpmball. I'd much rather the > developer have to remove the conflicting packages themselves, rather than > have it done automatically. It would mean "rpm -e --nodeps xen-tools xen-libs" has to be used. If any other package depends on the xen-libs for example, then in my opinion its better to get a clear "libxl.so.4 is required by XY" when doing "rpm -U xen.rpm". Olaf