Re: further package removals/potential package removals

[Jeff Johnson <n3npq nc rr com>]

Jeremy Katz wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 13:42 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  
>
> > If someone fixes it so there's no tradeoff (we can 
> > get it by default, *and* you can uninstall it), 
> > then fantastic; of course nobody will object.
> >
> > A "requires(missingok)" sounds fine to me, but 
> > the anaconda guys are the ones whose opinion
> > counts.
> >    
>
> ...
> And, of course, there's the ever fun part about if there's anything like
> this, then _every time you do an upgrade_, you'll get the package added
> back.
>
> At which point, people complain, we turn off the use of the hint on
> upgrades and we're back to step1.  Around and around the mulberry bush
> we go, where it stops, no one knows. 
>  

Not true.

The "missingok" mechanism fails on legacy code/packaging by reproducing
the current behavior exactly as is.

Meanwhile, new packaging for, say, nautilus which has
   Requires(missingok): gnome-vfs2-smb
and a depsolver that tests RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK drop a sub-tree that
is optional.

I fail to see a mulberry bush, except in this loopy and endless fretting.

Show me the mulberries *please*.

73 de Jeff