Re: Re: Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning

[gadgeteer () elegantinnovations org]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:27:10PM +0200, Maarten (fulldisc () ultratux org) wrote:
> On Sunday 29 August 2004 00:04, gadgeteer () elegantinnovations org wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 10:23:36PM +0200, Maarten (fulldisc () ultratux org) 
> wrote:
> > > I remember well that at one time I wanted to install a SuSE system
> > > without X, and just one package triggered 4 other packages and those then
> > > triggered the full X eventually.  It really was a pain.  Mind you, that
> > > was a few years back, I get the distinct impression things have changed
> > > for the better now.
> >
> > I've not used yast but with rpm at least you can pass a flag to ignore
> > dependencies.
>
> Yes.  But that's hardly the point, is it.  You can remove the unwanted 
> packages using 'rpm -e --nodeps' too, but you shouldn't need to.

Why not?  If someone were installing X and failed to install one of
those packages triggered by the dependencies in your example above then
their installation would be broken.

If the 'one package' were compiled to use shared libs from X it would be
broken if you do not install those libs.  Usage without X may or may not
induce it to actaully break but there is code in there that if executed
expects to find those shared libs.

The correct thing would have to be re-compile that package to not depend
on any of the packages not installed.
-- 
Chief Gadgeteer
Elegant Innovations

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html