further package removals/potential package removals

[Jeff Johnson]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

>>Meanwhile, new packaging for, say, nautilus which has
>>    Requires(missingok): gnome-vfs2-smb
>>and a depsolver that tests RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK drop a sub-tree that
>>is optional.
>>
>>I fail to see a mulberry bush, except in this loopy and endless fretting.
>>
>>Show me the mulberries *please*.
>>    
>>
>
>
>user goes from package-1.0-1.0 to package-1.1-1.0 which now had a
>Requires(missingok): gnome-vfs2-smp. Fine; yum (for the sake of
>argument) grabs gnome-vfs2-smp as well and everything is happy.
>Now the user gets annoyed by the "bloat" and removes gnome-vfs2-smp.
>Still fine.
>
>Then a security update comes out, package-1.1-1.1 and the user of course
>upgrades to that. yum will *AGAIN* pull in gnome-vfs2-smp. User gets
>really annoyed and considers this not-fine.
>
>Would there be a way to version the missingok such that it's a hint to
>the depsolver to only solve the dep if the old package is matching the
>versioning ?
>  
>

The "missingok" bit is passed to yum. Yum can of course choose to treat the
"missingok" dependency as a mandatory Requires:, in which case the beahavior
is as you describe.

Or yum, and anaconda, and up2date might perhaps do something more 
intelligent.

You never know, do ya?

73 de Jeff