suggests/requires in rpm
Jeff Pitman
symbiont at berlios.de
Mon Jan 24 15:16:39 UTC 2005
On Monday 24 January 2005 23:06, Darrin Thompson wrote:
> I think what bothers me about this is that I'm having trouble
> identifying what I trust in the before missingok scenario vs. what I
> mistrust in the after scenario. I think it's that the correct use of
> the feature is distributed so widely that it would be hard for me to
> reestablish trust in the new regime.
If you trust the provider, then the package should be trusted to do its
job. If not, bugzilla. Barring reference to GPG sigs, using a feature
of RPM is not going to affect trust either positively or negatively:
it's the provider, how they wield the tool, and their historical
performance wielding it.
An update may or may not bring in the missing packages in the
depsolver--this has yet to be implemented, at all. But, this does
nothing but potentially bloat disk space a little. Does that mean you
lose trust? I dunno; but, it's readily resolved. RFE or patch
depsolver is the best bet.
--
-jeff
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list