Dependency loops considered harmful?

Michael Wiktowy michael.wiktowy at gmail.com
Tue Sep 9 22:28:42 UTC 2008


On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> wrote:
> And I am afraid there will be no real resolution of this problem,
> until yum will be able to do the same thing which aptitude on
> Debian was able to do for years -- remembering which package was
> installed because user wanted to do so, and which one was
> installed only to satisfy dependencies.

Another way of thinking of things would be: rather than keeping track
of what package was installed as a dependency, have which packages are
"libraries" labeled in the metadata of the actual package; "libraries"
being specifically defined here as packages that provide something to
one or more other packages but are not inherently useful by
themselves. That could include game data, plugins or base libraries
... or even some helper apps. Rather than changing the rpm database or
behaviour, this might be handed just by putting the package in a
specific software group.

This differentiates those leaf packages from other non-library leaf
packages that don't depend on anything and also are not expected to
provide anything to other packages but are inherently useful all by
themselves.

At that point, all the information is available for package managers
like yum to make intelligent decisions based on user preferences about
what to do with "library" packages that are installed with no other
package installed that requires them. A developer who needs libraries
around to create software or someone who just has a ton of hard-drive
space and isn't really interested in culling unused libraries can set
a preference in their package manager of choice that tells it not to
get rid of packages that are labeled as "libraries" when they are
unused.

Just a different perspective to change the problem from "how a package
was installed?" to "what kind of package is this?".

/Mike




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list