Same named packages, different dependencies

[Jay Scherrer]

What would happen if you turned on MD5 checking of the RPMs?

Jay Scherrer


On Thursday 09 December 2004 02:07 am, fedora-list-request at redhat.com 
wrote:
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:57:06 -0500
> From: A1tmblwd at netscape.net
> Subject: Re: Same named packages, different dependencies
> To: fedora-list at redhat.com (For users of Fedora Core releases)
> Message-ID: <316ED7CB.08FDAD59.005FFA64 at netscape.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Brian Richardson <brian at cubik.ca> wrote:
> >A1tmblwd at netscape.net wrote:
> >
> >[ snip ]
> >
> >>perl-XML-Parser from Dag
> >>========================
> >>  
> >
> >Dag, at least, points out that his packages may/will depend on
> > other packages _in his repository_. This is the case for all 3rd
> > party vendors He is also nice enough to point out when a
> > particular package is maintained by another repository. Simply
> > put, the RPMs provided by the Fedora Project are considered
> > authoritative for a particular package. Any add-ons will of
> > course be provided by 3rd-party vendors. The coincidence of names
> > is simply that.
>
> If it is coincidence up2date, yum and apt are in dire need of
> improvement because none of these applications can distinguish
> between packages from an authoritative source and 3rd-party. Once
> the repositories are enabled these applications will indicate that
> ATrpms's package is an upgrade for Fedora's.