[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: I'm sure you get your share of I HATE PAM messages.



On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> 	I will make the observation that your complaint is logically
> equivalent to someone who (a) installs Solaris 2.3 on their system, (b)
> partially installs some binaries from Solaris 2.5.1 on their system, and
> when things break, complain long and loudly about what a poor job
> Sunsoft did on making their (insert favorite technology) work.
>
> 	Why didn't you upgrade your entire system to Redhat 4.2?  It
> would have been the safer, and better solution.  Note that newer
> versions of Redhat and RPM *do* support dependencies....

Actually, I disagree. It is not logically equivalent. First, if it's so
bloody dangerous to use any of those new RPMS if you don't use all of
them, then they should have a big warning label on all of them if they
allow them out to the public. But that's what the dependency information
is for.

And the version of rpm that I'm using does support dependencies. I would
have very few problems with this situation if it didn't - because then I'd
know I had to look out for myself. But it does. And while it will warn you
not to install pam without pamconfig, and not to install pamconfig without
pam, it will not even give you a hint about it's relationship with, for
instance, libc. Nor is there any mention of it in the documentation. 
Anywhere. Or am I wrong?

--
David Wood
wood@spiralmedia.com




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []