On Friday 30 December 2005 01:27, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 01:17 -0800, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > Whoops, misread what Thorsten said, I think. I don't think he was > > advocating for mythtv into Extras, he was talking about putting it into > > another repo. What's wrong with the ATrpms version? Is it simply a matter > > of principle that people refuse to use the ATrpms package(s), since > > ATrpms can/does override core packages? A protectbase option seems like > > an idea solution for that, so why dismiss it w/"use a repo that doesn't > > override"... > > The question is, what good is this plugin doing? If you enable a 3rd > party repo, to get something like MythTV, you'll need to get the deps. > If the deps happen to replace core/extras packages, then they do. They > are necessary for the software you are asking to install. So you're > going to override it to install your software. This is in the install > context. In the update context, then sure if the 3rd party repo nvr for > a package is higher than the nvr for the core/extras package then this > plugin might be useful to ignore that, unless ignoring would break deps > with something like MythTV. Seems to me that there should be a > different method than just protecting core/extras. Seems the > 'protection' should be based around replacing for no other reason than > nvr comparison. If the replacement is pulled in for an honest dep > satisfaction, rather than just a higher nvr comparison, then it should > be allowed. Otherwise prompt user or block. This keeps 3rd party repos > working properly and keeps users systems as close to strict core/extras > as possible w/out breaking user installed software. I believe you just summed up exactly what I'd more or less ideally like to see out of this, just much more clearly so. :) I'd definitely agree that not core-stomping is a much more relevant issue when it comes to an upgrade than an install of new software. On a new install via yum, you get asked if you really want to install, with it shown plain as day what repo packages are coming from. Though its possible that a package from core would also satisfy the dependency of a new package you've requested to install out of a 3rd-party repo, but the 3rd-party repo happens to also have a version of that dependency that's "newer", so yeah, the package you're actually requesting to install would maybe have to have an explicit Requires: <dep> >= <version from 3rd-party repo>, otherwise install core version, if it exists... (I think that's what you said too). -- Jarod Wilson jarod@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpIh1Y0yKlWG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
