seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 14:18 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:04:07PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
As Bill said - the whitelist is just pain to maintain. So, if we want
something like this then we make it a tag at the rpm level. Heck, you
can have it be a rather innocuous provides that we could hack into yum
to look for:
Provides: look-for-i386-too
The i386 Gtk IM plugins wouldn't be used if gtk2.i386 isn't installed,
right? Similarly PAM i386 modules aren't needed when pam.i386 isn't
installed and NSS i386 modules when glibc.i[36]86 isn't installed.
In that case it would be best if this kind of dependency was somehow encoded
in the packages, rather than just forcing installation of unneeded i386
packages.
You'll note the default behavior in F9 is not install any i386 pkgs
unless explicitly asked for (or as a dependency).
If you want to have dependencies have arch-specific information in them
then, again, we need to talk about that at the rpm layer.
-sv
I agree with Seth on this one. Also, at first thought at least, it
should be possible to come up with the semantics to make this work, if
needed.
For one, I'm happy to loose the i386 stuff by default.
/Thomas
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
