On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:08:05 +0800, Jeff Pitman <symbiont@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The less magic RPM does, the better. Depsolvers are more fluid than RPM, The less MAGIC we have the better, regardless of where it is. I honestly don't see how throwing the issues in the bugreports you listed up a level to the depresolvers is going to help. Frankly, I think the more and more you ask depresolvers to do in terms of MAGIC, the more difficult things will become, because invaraibly different depresolvers will make different choices leading to different behavior instead of a standardization of behavior. What you suggest is going to make things much much worse... leading to a situation where packagers are designing packages with exactly one high-level depsolver in mind.. instead of focusing on what rpm is going to do with the package. Madness. > which is why they should acquire the necessary complex logic. > Heretofore mentioned bugzillas already clearly show why magic is a > BadThing at the RPM level and that the depsolvers should be charged to > make these decisions: Right.. so we can all yell at the multiple depsolvers when they all make uniquely different bad decisions. Magic is a bad thing... but if magic is going to have to happen.. you only complicate matters by asking the multiple depresolvers to each figure out how to implement it for themselves. -jef
