On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 21:08 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > But yum maintainers, the FPC and the rest of the world don't see > things as clear as D.W., so we should undo guidelines and allow file > level conflicts for D.W.'s sake. You seem confused -- or deliberately confusing. I'm talking about RPM allowing _fewer_ file conflicts than those we already allow, not more of them. > > Yum did not break. Again, what you say is untrue. > > yum does not break if it doesn't have to deal with both packages, > which may be pulled in by different dependencies. And how might they be pulled in by different dependencies? In practice, not just contrived cases which we wouldn't actually see in Fedora for real? > Just try the normal user use case, where he will try to install > foo.i386 while foo.x86_64 is already installed. "Don't do that!" would > be your cure probably, and yumex will paste a backtrace onto the > users' screen. Wasn't multilib supposed to improve user experience? That is currently (in FC7) not behaving optimally, and the post-F7 multilib plan improves it by getting rid of the mess like bug #235524. When that's done, and it makes sense to _switch_ a package from x86_64 to i386, that isn't hard to support in yum as a single transaction. RPM is already capable of it, of course. -- dwmw2 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
