Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:23:24 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Jul 7, 2014, at 21:54 , Marc W. Mengel wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 11:07 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>> What are the various feelings here? Make these rpms, don't make them?
>
> If they're not too much trouble, I would keep them, as mentioned above.
I do like the SL_ rpms, and unlike others on this list I think they are a very good (and actually the canonical) way to apply configuration state to an RPM based OS. That being said, the only tweak rpm from SL6 we're using is SL_password_for_singleuser. But yes, why not keep those that still make sense and not much effort to provide?
But I think SL_no_colorls is flawed. Marc, did you never have the problem that dircolors returned after a coreutils update? Moving the files out of the way IMO should be done in "%triggerin -- coreutils" rather than "%post" to prevent that and to make the results independent of the installation order...
-- Stephan
|
|
|