On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:02:15AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > Meanwhile, new packaging for, say, nautilus which has > > Requires(missingok): gnome-vfs2-smb > > and a depsolver that tests RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK drop a sub-tree that > > is optional. > > > > I fail to see a mulberry bush, except in this loopy and endless fretting. > > > > Show me the mulberries *please*. > > > user goes from package-1.0-1.0 to package-1.1-1.0 which now had a > Requires(missingok): gnome-vfs2-smp. Fine; yum (for the sake of > argument) grabs gnome-vfs2-smp as well and everything is happy. > Now the user gets annoyed by the "bloat" and removes gnome-vfs2-smp. > Still fine. > > Then a security update comes out, package-1.1-1.1 and the user of course > upgrades to that. yum will *AGAIN* pull in gnome-vfs2-smp. User gets > really annoyed and considers this not-fine. > As the current answer to "Can I do a yum upgrade of my system?" is "Read the Release Notes to see what special magic anaconda knows about and then do the upgrade at your own risk" I think yum/apt/etc shouldn't default to adding a missingok package when upgrading. This should only be something that anaconda does. Of course, I don't code for any of the package managers so it's not up to me. -Toshio
