On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 08:50:11AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 22:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > BUT! You are promoting to have bin sub-sub-packages that *WILL > > CONFLICT* on a file level. So the rpm manager you just had allow > > _fewer_ file conflicts will stab your new packaging methods in the > > back (and rightfully so). > > You repeat this falsehood _despite_ the fact that there would be no more > file conflicts in the repository than there are right now, but now they are dealt with > and the fact that I showed an example of yum coping with it just > fine? Oh, I can show you many examples of yum coping with a package against which 1000 other packages conflict on package/file and implicit levels. That doesn't mean that yum won't get rightfully upset once it need to look at more than one package ... > > Like mybrowser.x86_64 requiring java.x86_64 and yourbrowser.i386 > > requiring java.i386? Real enough? Just add your favourite browser > > names in the templates. > > If it's in a separate process it shouldn't matter about wordsize. yum install mybrowser.x86_64 yourbrowser.i386 resolving dependencies ... ... file /usr/bin/xxx from java.x86_64 conflicts with filr /usr/bin/xxx from java.i386 > I suspect you're thinking of the case where it's actually a library, and > has to be dlopened by the the browser. In which case you're being > deliberately misleading again (or just stupid), and you miss the point > that it would have to be 'java-libs.i386' and 'java-libs.x86_64', and > they'd install in parallel just fine. Come on David, every time you reach the end of your arguments you have to become offensively insultive. That just proves that once again your chain of arguments ended in /dev/null. > You're making less and less sense as time goes on -- you've lost what > little credibility you already had, and I really can't be bothered to > deal with your idiocy any more. Goodbye. > > *plonk* Have fun in the bin, I'm not going to drag you out of there again. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgphQMoHjy5xH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
