On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 07:54 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On 05/27/2009 01:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:07 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > >> I can't wait to see how we depsolve through: > >> > >> yum update: > >> > >> - foo is updated and recommends bar > >> - bar conflicts with baz which is also in the update > >> > >> > >> but I'm sure we'll muddle through - provided this is included in upstream > >> rpm. > > > > seems obvious to me that, in that case, bar should simply not be > > installed (possibly yum could print a note of what happened). > > > That may be obvious but I think it makes a lot more work. Instead of > simply having a possible dependency where the suggestion is either used > or not depending on a config file option, you have a dependency that > must be kept separate from the normal dependencies so that you know you > can get rid of it (and it's dependencies) if a conflict arises. ah, I see what you mean - you're not saying the problem is deciding what yum should do, but in the actual implementation. Gotcha. -- 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
