On Monday 24 January 2005 23:25, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > 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, > 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. Leading to? Destination already arrived. Name of high-level depsolver: Anaconda. Name of packagers designing packages with exactly it in mind: Redhat. > > 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. The yelling already started awhile ago. Finding amicable middle ground optimal--not a lot of agreement on what that is, yet. I, for one, am still open to more ideas on it.. What do you think? -- -jeff
