Description of problem: Current gnupg has lots of (heavy) dependencies which are unrelated to its core-functionality (encryption/signing): | $ rpm -qR gnupg | /usr/bin/perl | libldap.so.2 So, I am forced to install 50 MB of additional packages (perl + openldap deps), when I want to use gnupg. 50 MB does not seem to be very much, but it matters e.g. in chroot environments. Since these deps are introduced by two files which are not usually needed: | /usr/lib/gnupg/gpgkeys_ldap libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libldap.so.2 | /usr/lib/gnupg/gpgkeys_mailto /usr/bin/perl perl(Getopt::Std) it would be nice to move them into a subpackage (e.g. gnupg-extras). As I am said, this will save 50 MB diskspace and lots of unneeded dependencies. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): gnupg-1.2.4-2.1
still with gnupg-1.2.6-2. Can we fix this before FC4, please?
adjusting priority + severity because this packaging error annoys me more and more...
Adding FutureFeature keyword to RFE's.
Seems this is improved and the original concerns are addressed? Nalin should this remain open? $ rpm -qR gnupg /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh /sbin/install-info libbz2.so.1 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libcurl.so.4 libdl.so.2 libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1) libldap-2.4.so.2 libreadline.so.5 libresolv.so.2 libresolv.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) libresolv.so.2(GLIBC_2.2) libusb-0.1.so.4 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ yum deplist gnupg Finding dependencies: package: gnupg.i386 1.4.9-1.fc9 dependency: libz.so.1 provider: zlib.i386 1.2.3-18.fc9 dependency: /sbin/install-info provider: info.i386 4.11-5.fc9 dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libusb-0.1.so.4 provider: libusb.i386 0.1.12-15.fc9 dependency: /bin/sh provider: bash.i386 3.2-22.fc9 dependency: libreadline.so.5 provider: readline.i386 5.2-13.fc9 dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.3) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libresolv.so.2 provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libresolv.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libresolv.so.2(GLIBC_2.2) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: rtld(GNU_HASH) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libbz2.so.1 provider: bzip2-libs.i386 1.0.5-1.fc9 provider: bzip2-libs.i386 1.0.5-2.fc9 dependency: libdl.so.2 provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libc.so.6 provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) provider: glibc.i686 2.8-3 provider: glibc.i386 2.8-3 dependency: libcurl.so.4 provider: libcurl.i386 7.18.1-1.fc9 provider: libcurl.i386 7.18.2-1.fc9 dependency: libldap-2.4.so.2 provider: openldap.i386 2.4.8-3.fc9 provider: openldap.i386 2.4.8-6.fc9
The information we've requested above is required in order to review this problem report further and diagnose or fix the issue if it is still present. Since it has been thirty days or more since we first requested additional information, we're assuming the problem is either no longer present in the current Fedora release, or that there is no longer any interest in tracking the problem. Setting status to "CLOSED: INSUFFICIENT_DATA". If you still experience this problem after updating to our latest Fedora release and can provide the information previously requested, please feel free to reopen the bug report. Thank you in advance.