© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
9199653
demo site
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > They should require the gpg binary and not the package.
>
> Except yum people hate file requires and have spent quite a lot of time asking
> people to kill them in their packages. So it is not safe to assume gpg-using
> packages do not require it through a package name
What the yum people hate is file requires outside those included in primary data as they require downloading the big otherwise unnecessary filelists data. Stuff in /usr/bin is included in the primary data which is always downloaded so it doesn't make much of a difference whether binary or package name is required.
Back to the actual issue... missing gpg dependency goes as far back in history that I can easily check for (RHL 7.0). Funny how long these things can stay lurking without apparently anybody noticing.
As it is, signing support can't be meaningfully split into a separate sub-package... so I guess I'll just have rpm require /usr/bin/gpg for now.