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

Re: further package removals/potential package removals



mån 2005-01-24 klockan 09:50 +0100 skrev Florian La Roche:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:02:15AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 
> > > 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*.
> > 
> > 
> > user goes from package-1.0-1.0 to package-1.1-1.0 which now had a
> > Requires(missingok): gnome-vfs2-smp. Fine; yum (for the sake of
> > argument) grabs gnome-vfs2-smp as well and everything is happy.
> > Now the user gets annoyed by the "bloat" and removes gnome-vfs2-smp.
> > Still fine.
> > 
> > Then a security update comes out, package-1.1-1.1 and the user of course
> > upgrades to that. yum will *AGAIN* pull in gnome-vfs2-smp. User gets
> > really annoyed and considers this not-fine.
> > 
> > Would there be a way to version the missingok such that it's a hint to
> > the depsolver to only solve the dep if the old package is matching the
> > versioning ?
> > 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like we should install gnome-vfs2-smb via comps.xml to
> provide it per default for new installs, but also let people de-install it.
> Then the remaining item is to look at updates. I think with good error
> messages and maybe some release notes this should be ok, not that much
> more rpm deps can solve for this situation.

To me, this seems to be the best and simplest solution. The requirement
for gnome-vfs2-smb is apparently there to make sure the default install
has certain funcionality, so why not delegate that responsibility to the
installation program (i.e. Anaconda)? If the user wants to remove it
later, fine. On upgrades, gnome-vfs2-smb will be upgraded if it's
installed, otherwise it won't be installed. 

+1 for letting Anaconda define the default install package set, instead
of using "Requires".

/Peter      




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