On 13/07/16 06:39, Marko Myllynen wrote:
Hi,
On 2016-07-12 23:25, Ken McDonell wrote:
I'm afraid you cannot simply do this ...
The commit message omitted the note I included with the patch email:
"Using Fedora/RHEL package names, hopefully ok."
Yep, that's not OK in general I'm afraid.
This due to fact that I didn't check anything else outside of that
sphere. But ...
build: add to ds389{,log} RPM package dependencies
because perl-LDAP is not available as an rpm package for all platforms
where we build PCP rpms, and in these cases we have the option of
installing Net::LDAP via cpan so the PMDA works even when the rpm prereq
is not satisified.
... which are these platforms? I wonder how realistic it is to expect
that someone is running 389 Directory Server on them.
The platforms (so far) are:
vm02 3.11.4 i686 openSUSE 13.2 (Harlequin)
vm04 3.11.4 i686 CentOS 5.11 (Final)
And I agree the chances of this PMDA being used on these platforms is
close to zero, which is why option (a) is the right choice, namely don't
build the package at all for these platforms, which means the Requires
clause can stay for the platforms where the packages are built.
|