further package removals/potential package removals

[Jeff Johnson]

Enrico Scholz wrote:

>Jeff Johnson <n3npq at nc.rr.com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>>>All paths in rpm are changeable through appropriate configuration,
>>>>difficulty is in the eye of the beholder.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>What would be the "appropriate configuration" to change the path of
>>>/etc/rpm/platform?
>>>      
>>>
>>rm -f /etc/rpm/platform and live with uname(2) lies from the kernel.
>>    
>>
>
>??? How will this help for '--root' installations for i586-redhat-linux
>guests on an i686-redhat-linux host?
>  
>

It doesn't.

And /etc/rpm/platform is not part of rpm configuration, but rather a 
replacemnet
for uname(2) imho.

And yes, arch (and os) in rpm is fabulously useless, always has been. 
Someday I'll be
permitted to change the crap.

But we've come quite far from the original thread, haven't we?

No matter what
    %_netsharedpath /usr/share/doc
prevents installation of doco files, and is less crude than the the original
complaint that the following was needed to reclaim disk space:
    cd /usr/share/doc
    rm -f *

73 de Jeff