Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Re: Re: Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning
From: Maarten <fulldisc () ultratux org>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:14:17 +0200
On Sunday 29 August 2004 22:41, gadgeteer () elegantinnovations org wrote:
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 you're installing X then my example doesn't apply. My example applied to a scenario where one definitely _doesn't_ want X (on a server perhaps) and it gets installed despite, due to some obscure dependency. Then you are tasked to remove all of X (and it's a lot) by rpm -e --nodeps. That is a big job... especially since you're not absolutely sure which packages belong to or depend on X and which do not.
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.
There is the possibility (AFAIK) to name a dependency "Optional". That would be a better choice in the example(s) at hand. SuSE's Yast doesn't have X as dependency since it can work without it, albeit it is looking nicer in X. More packages should follow that. If a package offers a ncurses mode, IMHO it should not depend on X (or kdelibs, or glib, or gnome-lib, etc.(*)) (*) well except if it's real base functionality depends on those. But as I said, things already are (much) better now as they were a couple of years back...
The correct thing would have to be re-compile that package to not depend on any of the packages not installed.
Hum, I don't fully agree but splitting up the package would be a good thing, akin to emacs / xemacs, thereby elegantly solving the problem. Maarten -- Yes of course I'm sure it's the red cable. I guarante[^%!/+)F#0c|'NO CARRIER _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning, (continued)
- Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning andreas (Aug 27)
- Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning Robert Jaroszuk (Aug 27)
- Re: Automated ssh scanning Matt Zimmerman (Aug 27)
- Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning Chris Adams (Aug 30)
- Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning Ron DuFresne (Aug 26)
- Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning gadgeteer (Aug 28)
- Re: Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning Maarten (Aug 28)
- Re: Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning gadgeteer (Aug 28)
- Re: Re: Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning Maarten (Aug 29)
- Re: Re: Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning gadgeteer (Aug 29)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning Maarten (Aug 29)
- Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning gadgeteer (Aug 29)
- Re: Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning Ron DuFresne (Aug 28)
- RE: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning Ron DuFresne (Aug 26)
- Re: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning gadgeteer (Aug 28)