Le jeu 18/12/2003 à 22:56, Jeremy Katz a écrit : > On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 15:42 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > I know the "virtual package" idea has been tossed around before. I > > think it is a good idea; it handles this without additional software or > > config files or anything. > > No it doesn't. Because people are now complaining that they have GNOME > with nautilus-cd-burner -- so they end up having to remove the GNOME > metapackage to remove nautilus-cd-burner and then they lose every > benefit of having it. It works just as poorly as dependencies and is > far less fine-grained which makes it far inferior in my opinion. > That's why virtual bundles should be "loose" and not mandatory links like current package deps. They'd be used to register "areas of interest", with the user prompted when one of the installed bundles perimeter changed (ie you have the Gnome bundle installed - Gnome has been expanded to include metacity-cd-burner do you want to install it ?) This nicely handles system evolutions and existence of several usage logics that share the same core packages. When you put your subjective logic in rpm deps you force it on everyone, since rpm deps are mandatory for a well-behaving system. Cheers, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=