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

Re: suggests/requires in rpm

On Monday 24 January 2005 23:25, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:08:05 +0800, Jeff Pitman <symbiont berlios de> 
> > 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?


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