Sort order for multiple providers [WAS: Re: Gnote 0.3.0 - includes applet and more plugins]

[Seth Vidal]

On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matej Cepl wrote:

> On 2009-05-05, 20:46 GMT, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> I'd need to know a lot more about how you 'rebuilt' things and
>> what the outputs were to tell you anything here.
>
> Something in the lines of
>
> rpm -qf /usr/lib64/*/* |awk  \
>    '/nevlastní žádný balíček/ {print $2}'\
>    |xargs repoquery -qf|sort -u|xargs yum install -y
>
> run on different directories (various lib* and *bin directories).
> ('nevlastní žádný balíček' is 'not owned by any package' in
> Czech).
>
> Which I think means something totally unpredictable, I guess.
>
>> But if a pkg requires mta and has nothing else to show us then sure,
>> shortest name will win.
>>
>> Would you rather it be unpredictable?
>
> No, I would prefer FESCO (or whomever) approved policy stating
> that e.g. /usr/sbin/sendmail or mta-daemon means (in this or any
> other order):
>
> 1) sendmail
> 2) postfix
> 3) exim
> 4) huge group of pidgeons,
> 5) small group of pidgeons,
> 6) a pidgeon
> 7) bottle in the sea
> 8) Lotus Notes
> 9) M$ Exchange
> 10) qmail
>
> or something of that sort.

as I said on irc right before you dropped off:

Problems:
1. you need to determine that order and get everyone to stop arguing over 
it enough to ratify it
2. you need special info in the repodata to make that happen
3. you need to deal with conflicts in the repodata between repos


-sv