On 11. 02. 22 13:50, Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> No we didn't and it will make the feature less usable - see reported issues
> during testing in original request (
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c74
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c74>).
Miro's reply was: "That was expected and we can make sure our
packaging guidelines discourage Recommedns with full [NEVR]". Then there was
follow-up discussion with general agreement that the example from #c74 was in
fact a packaging mistake. In fact there was some discussion of amending the
guidelines.
DNF is not a component only in Fedora and we have to support the LEGACY point
of view. Changing guidelines is not an option because they are not mandatory
but something as a recommendation. People will anyway ship packages with
versioning of relation dependencies because they want, they can and they need
them. Creating such a rule will only make things worse.
Let's take a step back, since I feel we've derailed. We appear to be discussing
two related but different things:
- behavior of a new dnf option
- whether or not the new option should be turned on by default in Fedora
If dnf needs to support use cases of another distro (say legacy RHEL), that can
easily happen by not changing the default there. Maybe I just don't see the
whole picture?
What I'd like to understand better is how option 3 (which seems to be preferred
by you, if I am not mistaken) makes this situation any different. Why do you
assume the impact on legacy systems will be smaller if we go with option 3?
Changing guidelines might as well work in Fedora, as Zbyszek said. We can fix
the packages easily. I can even offer my help to do it and even attempt to do
it in c9s.
I understand that packagers will always break the rules. That is not a
phenomenon specific to weak dependencies. When they do, we can fix it. And when
we don't fix it, the worst case is they get the behavior that was the default
until now. That doesn't sound that bad to me: Packagers who follow the rules
will get nice things, packagers that don't will get things that ain't that nice
but still work.
Another thing I'd like to understand from your POV is why would packagers
actually *need* exactly-versioned Recommends. Could you please give me an
example use case? I understand why they might *assume they need* it, because
packaging is complex and this might seem like a reasonable thing to do for
somebody who's not been following this discussion. The new guideline would help
explain that, making the things better, not worse.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
