[Rpm-maint] various bug fixes (patches)

[seth vidal]

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.
> Agreed. 
> 
> 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. :)

-sv