-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:33:05PM -0600, Michael Favia wrote: > >>Dave Jones wrote: >> >>>On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 03:22:53PM -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: >>> >>> > Providing 'kernel-modules' on the other hand... i don't think anything >>> > requires 'kernel-modules' so it might be okay to make kernel-devel >>> > provide that but i still seems to me like potential double-meaning to >>> > what 'kernel-modules' means since kernel-devel doesnt actually include >>> > a single kernel-module. >>> > >>> > Maybe Dave Jones can be poked into making a comment about this. >>> >>>Adding either of the provides seems like a rather ugly hack. >>>up2date already has the smarts to installonly the -devel package, >>>so I'm of the opinion yum should be fixed to do the right thing too. >>>Jeremy is rebuilding yum as I type for tomorrows rawhide to >>>take care of this issue. >> >>Yes but the real question is "Where does this information belong?" I >>dont think that these things should be managed ad-hoc by each competing >>package manager but instead internalized into the packages themselves >>somehow for scalabiltiy and adaptability purposes. > > > It has often been suggested to add a new rpm tag for this > purpose. E.g. you could have > > UpdateMode: (installation|alwaysupgrade) > > or > > AutoUpgrade: no > > rpm 4.4 would be a good candidate to get this in. > this sounds like a much more reasonable solution (in any form it takes) than making each depsolver take on the task individually. - -- Michael Favia michael.favia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Insites Incorporated http://michael.insitesinc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB9Y5GBVsNYjF2rDYRAuvIAJ0cweh02/fHfXyACT0yhI7oYCy33gCcDQQI a7XGiA6rxZSGTNwimyFhnWU= =ZhBT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
