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

Re: suggests/requires in rpm

On Monday 24 January 2005 23:06, Darrin Thompson wrote:
> I think what bothers me about this is that I'm having trouble
> identifying what I trust in the before missingok scenario vs. what I
> mistrust in the after scenario. I think it's that the correct use of
> the feature is distributed so widely that it would be hard for me to
> reestablish trust in the new regime.

If you trust the provider, then the package should be trusted to do its 
job.  If not, bugzilla.  Barring reference to GPG sigs, using a feature 
of RPM is not going to affect trust either positively or negatively: 
it's the provider, how they wield the tool, and their historical 
performance wielding it.

An update may or may not bring in the missing packages in the 
depsolver--this has yet to be implemented, at all.  But, this does 
nothing but potentially bloat disk space a little.  Does that mean you 
lose trust?  I dunno; but, it's readily resolved.  RFE or patch 
depsolver is the best bet.


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