On Monday 29 October 2007, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 03:00:29PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Of course, you can try to get away with just "Requires: some-pkg-name", > > but that is too fragile, especially if you already believe that the > > linked file might be dropped any time. > > It really depends on the situation, but, agreed, having a file > dependency solves adequately the issue in many cases. And unless the file dependency happens to be an explicit Provides: in the package that contains the target file, doing so also causes yum to download filelists.* in many cases which causes more stuff to download for people and triggers problem reports every now and then when someone looks into why it's happening. I think having both a package name and a file based dependency could be helpful [0] - at least theoretically yum could first resolve all non-file dependencies, see if things pulled in by those also satisfy the file based ones required in the transaction, and only download filelists as a last resort if not. I don't think it currently does though; at least it didn't back when I tried that approach in w3c-markup-validator (it's still in the specfile nevertheless). [0] Yep, the fragility of the package name based dependency would still be there, but the additional file based one would reduce the probability of silent breakage. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
