On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 10:55:58AM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > V Sat, May 18, 2024 at 08:20:53PM +0200, Sandro napsal(a): > > On 16-05-2024 13:14, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > A workaround could be rpm-build or mock to register rpm-build package in > > > /etc/dnf/protected.d configuration files. Packages listed there are prevented > > > from removal no matter of --allow-erasing. > > > > A bit late to the party, but I was wondering if making `add-determinism` and > > `add-determinism-nopython` require `rpm-build` would also achieve > > `rpm-build` being protected from removal as a workaround. > > > > If either package requires it there should only be one way forward, if my > > understanding of the issue is correct. > > > That's also a possible way. Many times defining the reverse dependendency can > be justified as (add-determinism) being a plugin (of rpm-build). It also helps > cleaning useless plugins (add-determinism) when the framework (rpm-build) is > uinstalled. > > A drawback is creating dependency loop. Thank you for the suggestion. I think that with the current state things are good, so I don't plan to change things, unless we discover some breakage. FWIW, add-determinism is fully functional without rpm-build… I expect that most people who use it would have rpm-build installed, but I think it's better to not create dependency loops to keep things flexible. 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
