Dependencies a little excessive?

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 15:04 -0400, seth vidal a écrit :
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 20:59 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 14:56 -0400, seth vidal a écrit :
> > > On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 14:51 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 10 August 2006 14:48, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > > > No, I don't like the behavior of installing both arches by default.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't personally either, but I have the capacity to fix that for my system.  
> > > > I'm just repeating the reasoning that was given to me the last time I bitched 
> > > > about it.
> > > 
> > > So everyone hates it? anyone in favor? 
> > 
> > We hate it :)
> > 
> 
> okay - then here are a couple of more situations I want to make sure are
> understood:

Ok, my own non-representative opinion there is :

1. yum operations should always target the primary arch when packages
are not already installed, and all installed arches otherwise

2. using globs for arches in the package list is silly - most of the
times if you target one or all arches it's the same rule for all the
packages. So the arch mode should not be specified in the package list
but via a specific yum flag ( --arch foo, --biarch, whatever)

3. control freaks which want a package-level arch granularity in the
orders they issue through yum can type full arches instead of globs.
This is not the general case and we should not optimize for it.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060810/4b858cf4/attachment.sig>