On 21. 1. 2015 at 13:42:01, drago01 wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Dne 21.1.2015 v 12:34 Peter Robinson napsal(a): > >>> Are we expected to cross referencing previous logs to see if there's > >>> changes or if it's the same and provide you that information? We > >>> already have too much to do so it's easier to stick with yum where we > >>> know what the outcome is. Sorry, not going to do your work for you! > >>> Peter > >> > >> I'd expect that if we are speaking about DNF as default (and it was > >> approved by FESCo), that releng do scratch mass rebuild of all these 18k > >> packages built using DNF and give us list of failed packages. What are > >> these failures is not your concern but package maintainers concern. > > > > If they build with yum why is it a bug in the packaging? > > Because the deps expressed in the package apparently really on a > specific implementation detail of yum which > is just wrong so: > > 1) There is bug in dnf as you state > 2) Assuming the package set that dnf resolves satsify the expressed > deps it *is* a bug in the package. Exactly. Over the years many packages have set their dependencies to utilize some specific parts of yum depsolving algorithm to get a specific result. In these cases it's the packages what needs to be fixed. I'd like to stress that depsolving problem is NP complete. The fact that DNF offers a different solution doesn't mean the solution is wrong. It might be in some cases but it shouldn't be automatic assumption. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
