[Rpm-maint] various bug fixes (patches)

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Wed Nov 14 14:09:12 UTC 2007

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 08:54 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 13:42 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > What I'd suggest is:
> > - take the SUSE approach and store the weak dependencies separately so
> >    supporting weak dependencies from depsolvers etc is entirely an opt-in
> >    thingy and causes no legacy incompatibilities
> > - ditch out the RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK symbol to signify the fact that we
> >    handle the issue differently (from rpm5)
> > - replace RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK with RPMSENSE_HINT (only really used
> >    internally at build-time for determining which tag the thing goes to)
> > - replace (compared to current SUSE patch) RPMSENSE_STRONG with
> >    RPMSENSE_HINT_STRONG to make it obvious what it relates to
> >    (only used when looking at RPMTAG_SUGGEST* RPMTAG_ENHANCE* tags
> >    from headers for classifying "strongness" of the weak dep)
> > - replace (compared to current SUSE patch) the Requires(strong) spec
> >    syntax variant with Requires(stronghint), again just to make it plain
> >    obvious what it is
> > 
> > Does that sound ok?
> > 
> When do you plan on implementing this and more importantly is there a
> plan for when it shows up in a fedora release? The packaging committee
> is going to want a drive by on this, I think.

Also I would like to see some detailed documentation on this feature.

Intentionally (non-hostile), devel's advocate questions: 
- Does any application need this feature?
- How are applications supposed to use this feature?

ATM, I am not really convinced it is _really_ useful.


More information about the Rpm-maint mailing list