On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 04:07:13AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > > >>But that doesnt allow higher-level package management systems to > >>spot such dependencies though. > > > >How that would be really different? > > Because the refcount would be a dependency, but that dependency isn't > expressed anywhere, hence it's invisible to yum. The problem is > similar to the dependency chain you noted in a previous mail, except > your package management system can't see it and can't do anything > about it. > > X.i386 -> Y.i386 (X depends on Y) > A.x86-64 -> Y.x86-64 No, this does not work that way. If you have A.i386 and A.x86_64 installed, and they do have common files, then an attempt to update only one from this pair ends up with conflicts. Seth already suggested that yum may have a "pair check" which woud allow either both updates or none. > X.x86-64 is to be upgraded, and depends on a newer version of > Y.x86-64, which is pulled in and upgraded. Here you really have A.i386, A.x86_64, and Common.noarch. Both As depend on Common. If you will try to update only, say, A.x86_64 this will force an update of Common which will cause "broken dependencies" error for a change unless you are updating A.i386 as well. So what is the real gain? Do you plan to loosen up dependencies on Common? That would open a gate to real horrors. Michal -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list