On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 14:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > > And as I said before - the 'soft requires' need to have a lot of policy > > decided on before we throw them into the tree. Not only for kickstart > > but also for yum and policy for how things like 'enhances' will be > > moderated in extras. > > Doing it willy-nilly is a path to pain. > > I'd argue that the rpm feature can be enabled asap/now (since, afaik, > nothing uses it), then the technical details and policy can be hammered > out, but that's just me. (: Is the "soft requires" feature just syntactic sugar for specfiles and another way of saying Requires(hint)/Requires(missingok) or something else? The latter is already being used in a bunch of FE packages, but I'm not quite up to date on how it's handled by rpm and friends in current FCx and devel nowadays. _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
