suggests/requires in rpm
Jeff Pitman
symbiont at berlios.de
Mon Jan 24 15:59:50 UTC 2005
On Monday 24 January 2005 23:25, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:08:05 +0800, Jeff Pitman <symbiont at berlios.de>
wrote:
> > The less magic RPM does, the better. Depsolvers are more fluid than
> > RPM,
> What you suggest
> is going to make things much much worse... leading to a situation
> where packagers are designing packages with exactly one high-level
> depsolver in mind.. instead of focusing on what rpm is going to do
> with the package. Madness.
Leading to? Destination already arrived. Name of high-level depsolver:
Anaconda. Name of packagers designing packages with exactly it in
mind: Redhat.
> > which is why they should acquire the necessary complex logic.
> > Heretofore mentioned bugzillas already clearly show why magic is a
> > BadThing at the RPM level and that the depsolvers should be charged
> > to make these decisions:
>
> Right.. so we can all yell at the multiple depsolvers when they all
> make uniquely different bad decisions. Magic is a bad thing... but
> if magic is going to have to happen.. you only complicate matters by
> asking the multiple depresolvers to each figure out how to implement
> it for themselves.
The yelling already started awhile ago. Finding amicable middle ground
optimal--not a lot of agreement on what that is, yet. I, for one, am
still open to more ideas on it.. What do you think?
--
-jeff
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list