On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:23:31 -0500, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Speaking of useless large package updates, why does redhat bundle > koffice-i18n, k3b-i18n (these are just 2 examples) into the main koffice > and k3b rpms, so that any updates to koffice and k3b will also "force > users to eat useless large updates"? I hear there is this wonderful thing that rpm has called obsoleting..... so that if a specific package is decided to be split or combined later on down the road, it can be handled gracefully. what you are suggesting is a mandatory rebuild of any packages as a matter of overreaching naming policy....for the entire collection of packages. In a world full of shades of gray, the contrast setting in this argument is set pretty high. And you still have not addressed the issue of how to handle backported fixes. So far in this example you are talking about replace foo-1.3 with foo-1.4 or foo-1.5. The actually problem is how to roll backported fixes. Applying targetted fixes to foo-1.3 does not make it foo-1.4 or foo-1.5. foo-1.4 and foo-1.5 upstream could very well include change in functionality beyond the needed fixes. It is not always appropriate to bump a package up to the next version. You can either accept that backport fixes will be needed and the naming policy will need to be flexible enough to handle that, or you can't accept it. Until you accept the need for that situation, I'm not sure any further discussion on the list about this is worth having. -jef
