Jon Peatfield wrote:
> 

..snip ... hopefully not too much is snipped off ...

> since we can't (easily) change TUVs xorg-x11-* packages, perhaps the xfs
> package shouldn't provide 'xfs', would the following patch to the xfs.spec
> make sense?  Would it cause any problems?
> 
> $ diff -bu SPECS/xfs.spec{~,}
> --- SPECS/xfs.spec~     2007-11-12 18:41:10.000000000 +0000
> +++ SPECS/xfs.spec      2008-12-11 14:50:26.000000000 +0000
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
>   #
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   Summary:       The XFS(tm) Filesystem from Silicon Graphics, Inc.
> -Name:          %{pkg_name}
> +Name:          %{pkg_name}-filesystem
>   Version:       0.4
>   Release:       1%{?dist}
>   Epoch:                 0
> 
> ie currently xfs only provides xfs because that is the 'name' of the
> package.  As far as I can see nothing in the xfs suite depends on that
> name so changing the package name ought to just result in different rpm
> 'names' and provides etc.
> 
> Perhaps calling it %{pkg_name}-meta would make it clearer that it is just
> a package to pull in the various kernel-module bits.
> 
> Does this make sense?  I coukld obviously rebuild things with this tweak
> but then I'd have to maintain yet another private package, so I'd prefer
> to have a fix in the sl version (if a good one can be found).
> 

Hi Jon,
Yes, that makes sense, and actually sounds like a good idea.
I personally think renaming it to "xfs-filesystem" makes the most sense. 
Because if it was xfs-meta, people still might think it is dealing with the fonts.
Does anyone else have any ideas or thoughts?
I'll see if I can get this into the testing area tomorrow if others think this 
is a good idea.
Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________