On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 07:41 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:29:35PM -0700, Matt McCutchen wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 22:43 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 08:02:13AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > I am a libguestfs user and I'm complaining. It means I have to schlep > > > > down a bunch of extra info on every update of libguestfs and that sucks > > > > on my bandwidth. > > > > > > This is basically a hard problem to solve. We rely on copying files > > > directly from the host into our appliance, so we rely on file > > > dependencies. We could change it so we didn't need file dependencies, > > > but that would cause silent breakage on updates. > > > > There are plenty of other kinds of breakage that cannot be caught by RPM > > dependencies. Why do you insist on using RPM dependencies to catch this > > kind, rather than testing and communication with the maintainers of the > > packages you depend on? > > So you're proposing that all maintainers of every dependent package > should have to email me before they can move any file around? Either that, or you set up a nightly job to check that all the files are still where you expect them in updates-testing and, if not, get the offending update delayed until you can prepare a corresponding libguestfs update. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
