Dnia 2008-03-01, o godz. 08:14:19 seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > no one is saying this isn't a valid part of rpm. I'm only saying that > using these kind of filedeps has a cost and I'd like to minimize that > cost as much as possible. While we're on that, I don't have any numbers, but I think we have more of Obsoletes: and Requires: that can't match any package in any supported Fedora version (or any Fedora version at all). For example, compat-libgcc-296 has: Obsoletes: gcc <= 2.96, compat-gcc of which first hits RHL 7.3 and the second - Fedora 3 at most. I don't think anyone is going to upgrade their system even from Fedora 3 (we're at 9), not to mention 6-year-old RHL. I'm sure we can agree on some period of time while we keep those tags (like 4 instead of 2 supported Fedora releases - we still have the repositories full of metadata), but after this time some robot should report them and maintainers should remove them to keep things clean. Of course it would need a white list of tags matching third party packages which we want to obsolete, but I'm sure this list won't be long (my guess: 1 maintainer asking to keep some tag for 50 maintainers removing them - we don't keep track on third party packages that much). Apart from Obsoletes: not matching anything, the robot can also keep track of versioned Requires: which don't need versioning anymore. This has the potential of making metadata only a little smaller, but also makes dependency resolving somewhat faster, I imagine. Lam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
