On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 01:53 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 08.04.2010, 19:05 -0400 schrieb Tony Nelson: > > On 10-04-08 14:13:01, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > [snipped] > > > > I never said it is a useful decision rationale, it's something we > > > cannot avoid. I agree it's not useful, but please address your > > > complainants to the yum developers. > > ... > > > > Would it work to change the name to "polkit-lxpolkit" and have it > > Provide lxpolkit? > > Then polkit-kde would win and it has even more deps. ;) > > Not sure if we should change the name from what upstream uses. IMO first > of all yum's depsolver should be enhanced. Matthias already made an > important point here. > > Regards, > Christoph > > P.S. /me wonders what would happen if we had polkit-gtk and polkit-kde > with the same provides and the same length of the name.. > Part of the solution here is to not rely entirely on yum depsolving, and instead add explicitly which polkit you want in the comps group, so that a provider is already selected. Yum won't select an additional one. This is what we should do for critpath as well, mark the gnome policy kit explicitly as part of the critpath. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
