On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:17:57 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > To me, this is the wrong fix. The problem here isn't RPM's version > comparison logic, which is perfectly sound. Instead of nerfing up RPM > comparisons, which are already full of enough hidden mines, we should > just improve Fedora's package versioning conventions so this doesn't > happen, or at least happens less often. Let me try to give 3 examples why I think a Vendor comparison, with the ordering defined in a config file, can be useful: 1. Some group of people would like to use Fedora for most packages except kernel, where they want to build a low-latency/whatever-funky option version. They create repo with Vendor "Low Latency" and the folks who are interested to use it add the repo to their yum.conf.d and put in the config file: "Low Latency" > "Fedora Project" and I think they'll get what they want, even if they do not keep exactly in sync with the Fedora repo update. 2. Similarly, if a user wishes to rebuild some of the Fedora packages using different compiler options because they think the execution speed will be improved on their hardware, they can simply rebuild the SRPM with the tweaked options and define Vendor as "My Fedora", and put: "My Fedora" > "Fedora Project" and they can then happily continue to receive Fedora updates for the packages they did not tweak and not worry that their tweaked packages will be replaced. 3. Suppose repo from Vendor "Funky Repo" provides some not-available elsewhere packages, but it also offers a mix of rebuilt packages from Fedora which you would rather not use, in this case you could add the repo and put in config: "Funky Repo" < "Fedora Project" and so yum would only select there packages that are not found in Fedora. Cheers, Christian -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
