[Rpm-maint] various bug fixes (patches)
skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Wed Nov 14 14:15:32 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 15:09 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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.
+1 to pretty much all of these. Sadly I don't have a good answer to any
of those questions. :)
More information about the Rpm-maint