On 12/30/05, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/29/05, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Exactly. Which is why any repo, be it atrpms or something else, that > > does see a need to replace package foo in core, and thus has > > overlapping package sets with core will not like this idiom. I have > > already been hit by bug reports that stem from improper use of > > priorities/weights and scores. Such filtering creates a lot more > > issues and debugging problems than it solves. > > let's be clear.... if protectbase plugin was turned on by default > would atrpm leave it enabled on client system or would you attempt to > disable the plugin via package scriptlet action? For me, if someone wanted to use pyvault, I wouldn't automatically disable it. But, I would have to document very prominently that if the user wanted to use pyvault, they'd have to turn this off. And, it'd be a FAQ, for sure. -- -jeff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
