On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:56:24PM +0200, Christian Dersch wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:08:46AM +0200, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: > >>I hope someone can help me with the following question: > >>Does recent Fedora's rpm support nested rich-dependencies like: > >> Supplements: (pkg_a and pkg_b and pkg_c and (pkg_d or pkg_e)) > >>Is there any way to express a dependency like that? > >Can you give an example of when this might be a good idea? It seems > >easy to go overboard with this without clear benefit. > > > The example is dnfdragora, a nice new GUI for DNF. It uses libyui > abstraction to provide native GUI/TUI for GTK+3, Qt and ncurses. The > rich-dependencies ensure that the right libyui bindings get > installed. So an Xfce user would get libyui-gtk while an LXQt user > would get libyui-qt. So, in concrete terms: Supplements: dnf and ____ and ____ and (libyui-gtk or libyui-qt) ? What are the blanks? And the meaning is: this shouldn't show up as a suggested addition unless those blanks _and_ a libyui of some sort is already installed (or will be installed)? Going back to the benefits question: why is this better than including dnfdragora in the appropriate groups in comps? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
