On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Björn Persson <bjorn@rombobjörn.se> wrote:
Jan Silhan <jsilhan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10. 11. 2014 at 10:31:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > 3. The page says "The depsolver may offer to treat the weak like very
> > weak relations or the other way round" does dnf do that? or not?
>
> DNF doesn't do that and never will. IMO that would be too hackish behavior.
You refuse to provide an option to pull in only required packages and
not recommended ones? So if I don't want some recommended package and
its dependencies in a slimmed system I should first let DNF install them
and then rpm --erase them? And if there isn't room to install them even
temporarily I'll have to avoid DNF and do the dependency resolution
manually?
Björn Persson
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
There are a couple of things that popped into my head about dependency resolution behavior:
1. If a package recommends/suggests a package that may exist in an optional repository, will dnf still properly resolve and install the package set (minus the the recommended/suggested packages) if the optional repository isn't active? That is, it won't throw an error and bomb out on "missing dependencies"?
2. How does this affect circular dependency logic that has mixed-level resolutions? For example, package A could have "recommends" in place for package B and "suggests" for package C while package B has "requires" for package A and package C has "supplements" for package A.
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
