Ville Skyttä wrote: > 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? AFAIK, yes. >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. AFAIK, rpm currently treats Requires(hint)/Requires(missingok) as a regular Requires. -- Rex _______________________________________________ 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
