Testing libsatsolver on Fedora
Miroslav Lichvar
mlichvar at redhat.com
Fri Jul 31 18:30:35 UTC 2009
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:19:19PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> We have a policy that forbids non-explicit file conflicts, yes.
I thought it applied to regular conflicts, now I see in the document
there are some exceptions allowed.
> If you have two pkgs and you know foo owns a file that bar also owns -
> you are obligated to put an explicit conflict in place.
That might be a nice createrepo feature to add such conflicts.
> The reason why yum doesn't detect them is b/c the metadata about files
> does not include color and checksum (mainly b/c if we did include that in
> the filelists metadata it would be outrageously large) If the satsolver
> is going to detect those then it will have to be AFTER it downloads all
> the rpms.
>
> Do you see what I mean?
Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean the explicit
conflicts between current versions of packages. I.e. the thing that
makes the complexity exponential.
For example:
package A: depends on X
package B: conflicts with D
package C: provides X
package D: provides X
yum install A B fails here as it tries to install A B D. The solution
is to install A B C.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list