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

Re: Agenda for the 2009-05-26 Packaging Committee meeting



On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 07:54 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 05/27/2009 01:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:07 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> I can't wait to see how we depsolve through:
> >>
> >> yum update:
> >>
> >> - foo is updated and recommends bar
> >> - bar conflicts with baz which is also in the update
> >>
> >>
> >> but I'm sure we'll muddle through - provided this is included in upstream
> >> rpm.
> >
> > seems obvious to me that, in that case, bar should simply not be
> > installed (possibly yum could print a note of what happened).
> >
> That may be obvious but I think it makes a lot more work.  Instead of 
> simply having a possible dependency where the suggestion is either used 
> or not depending on a config file option, you have a dependency that 
> must be kept separate from the normal dependencies so that you know you 
> can get rid of it (and it's dependencies) if a conflict arises.

ah, I see what you mean - you're not saying the problem is deciding what
yum should do, but in the actual implementation. Gotcha.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


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