On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:24:28 AM EDT Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2020-04-04 at 06:55 +0200, Jan Pazdziora wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 03:12:35PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > Maybe libsecret spec could provide an empty libsecret-never-fail > > > subpackage that would hard-require a libsecret server and the > > > applications like geary would require that subpackage. (Alternatively > > > libsecret-devel could provide a RPM macro that the applications use to > > > add a direct dependency on a server.) But this abstractions is quite > > > academic provided the only libsecret server in Fedora is > > > gnome-keyring. > > > > I wouldn't focus on a particular package because the situation can > > repeat with any other package in the future, and would make the question > > more generic. > > > > Is it expected, are we OK with the fact, that with default settings > > of weak dependencies enabled in dnf and anaconda, installing @group > > can eventually pull in way more packages than originally listed > > in the group, beyond the hard dependencies? Should following the weak > > dependencies be a boolean yes/no setting, or should it be a score and > > should the resolver have an option to favour weak dependencies when > > resolving the first level of depenencies from the original package > > list but decrease (perhaps radically) favouring them in next and > > next-next-levels, potentially even taking into account if the > > intermediate dependencies were explicit ones or implicit libraries? > > > > In other words, if I list packages A, B, C in transaction, I might > > want to have their weak dependencies thrown onto the system as well. > > But if A requires libX.so and libY.so, and package X requires G and > > that has weak dependency on K, I might not care about K. > > > > If I explicitly say I want G, then again, sure, give me K as well. > > Boy, I don't know about you but I sure am looking forward to taking a > degree in math to understand why packages are or are not installed! I think out of this whole experience, there might need to be a rule that any weak depency added to a package in @Core should not result in pulling is a nearly working desktop. Maybe that should also be extended to @Base? -Steve _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
