[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: further package removals/potential package removals



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




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]