On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 03:30 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > We were kicking around, in QA, using the same definition currently used > > for release-critical bugs: anything that can feasibly stop the system > > booting, stop X working, stop networking working, or stop you being able > > to update the system (i.e. yum+dependencies) would be 'core'. > > Under that definition, everything is core. > > Name: foo > Provides: glibc = 999:9 > Obsoletes: glibc < 999:9 > (plus some assorted fake soname provides to make the depsolving happy) > breaks your system pretty fast. ^^ I wouldn't consider that a reasonable interpretation. glibc itself should be part of core, but we can't consider *every* package part of core just because it could provide glibc. (On a tangent - can anyone think of any reason why we shouldn't enforce a rule that no package could provide the actual name of another package? I can't envisage any scenario where (ab)using Provides in that manner would be useful, but I may be missing something). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
