Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 05:12:06PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
But it would be even better if we could live with the assumption that repos
will have incompatibilities, whether accidental or intentional. Then it
would become a choice of which to install and things wouldn't break when
somewhere else updates first. Then you could focus on making your versions
better instead of compatible - and the politics wouldn't matter.
Sorry, that's not possible. Just to give an example: For some reason
you favour repo A and make it trump over repo B. Both repos ship
libfoo and repo B ships also appbaz needing libfoo with a couple more
configure options turned on.
No smart package manager in the world will detect this breakage. One
could strat thinking about stricter dependencies etc. but there will
always be real-world scenarios like the above spoiling your master
plan.
How much more information would rpm/yum need to store and consider in
order to understand that they should never overwrite a package from one
repository with one from a different repository without explicit
instructions? Permitting explicit repository-specific dependencies would
be nice too, although that could be worked around given the ability to
control the initial repo for a package and an understanding that no
other repo's version should replace it without permission even if it has
the same name and a higher version number.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
