On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 06:57 -0600, Richi Plana wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 09:11 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 01:29 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Is it intentional and safe for these packages to provide these Mono > > > capabilities? Are the pairs of packages, which provide exactly the > > > same things, interchangable at run-time? You know what can happen when > > > Yum resolves a dependency by pulling in the pkg with the shortest > > > name... > > > > I guess this is because some mono app ship dlls instead of depending on > > system versions of them? > > > > Ideally we shouldn't do this, but i'm sure there are cases where its not > > possible to avoid. Maybe the mono auto-provides should only be looking > > in the public directories for dlls to auto-provide? > > It's certainly not unheard of for different packages to provide the same > implementation of an interface. In fact, we should probably start > thinking of coming up for solutions for such a scenario. The > alternatives system is an example. Multiple implementations should be > allowed to co-exist on the system. Luckily mono seems to have a way to > choose which DLL it wants to use (probably first in the GAC or > whatever). The question is _"How should this be treated in package > management?"_ (which is Fedora's concern). I'm not sure these packages *actually* provide the things they say they do though. (Although I haven't looked at it.) I think they keep local per-app versions of some dlls in non-public directories. This means other apps will never pick up these dlls. However, the auto-provides finds them and marks the rpm. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
