Re: What should we do about the "Install only newly recommended packages on upgrades" F36 change?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 03:25:44PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > 1. do nothing, keep it broken
> 
> I pretty much dislike this option. Clearly, the current behavior is not what
> was approved in this change proposal. For me, it's a bad option.

Agreed. We want to use langpacks with rich depenendecies *more*, e.g. replacing
comps with that, and it'd be a big step back if rich deps stopped working as
expected.

> > 3. do not ignore already broken weak rich deps (partially reverts the change)
> 
> This sounds like a possible path forward -- it would probably still be an
> improvement over the the Fedora 35 status quo, however the results might be
> quite surprising for the users. If we decide to do this, I think we should
> postpone to Fedora 37 neverthelss to see it in action and figure out if it's
> actually a good idea or an UX nightmare.

Agreed, this doesn't sound too great either. I think we'd be better postponing
the feature until F37 or later if we can get a solution then.

> > 4. change the behavior on dynamically depending on the dnf command used
> > (discouraged)
> 
> As stated by the change owner in the bugzilla, this is probably not a good
> idea. Even when the user types `dnf install` it sometimes upgrades some
> already installed packages and even if they type `dnf upgrade` it sometimes
> installs some new packages.

Agreed also.

> > 2. disable this behavior by default, keep it optional, but keep it broken
> 
> This only makes sense if it's likely to get fixed and enabled again in later
> Fedora release. If the plan is to disable it by default and never touch it
> again, I suppose we might as well revert it entirely. I would very much to
> see the change happening as it was advertised, even if we cannot make ti to
> Fedora 36.

Agreed.

> For the sake of an open minded discussion, I am ignoring the fact that the
> change owners themselves don't consider it doable (I think that it is
> doable, but I honestly don't know if it is realistic with the current
> resources).

I'll just say what you and others said: rpm/dnf has *all* the information about
the system, so it should be just a matter of adding plumbing to push that
information to the right layer.

Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux