[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Same named packages, different dependencies

Paul Howarth wrote:
A1tmblwd netscape net wrote:

If it is coincidence up2date, yum and apt are in dire need of improvement because none of these applications can distinguish between packages from an authoritative source and 3rd-party. Once the repositories are enabled these applications will indicate that ATrpms's package is an upgrade for Fedora's.

I need to correct myself. The rpm naming scheme need improvement so that up2date, etc. can perform the differentiation.

It's not the naming scheme that needs improvement hare, it's the package management software (up2date, yum etc.). The smart package manager (and maybe others too?) as plugged here recently by Dag (RPMs at http://dag.wieers.com/packages/smart/) can be configured not to allow a repository to overwrite another repo's (or a core) package quite easily. The discrimination occurs at the repository level, not using package naming.


I don't agree.

All packages should be made to use the same dependencies by the package creators. If they have different dependencies than the original package they are supposed to be replacing, then they should be labeled differently so they don't try to replace the "correct" package.

If the correct package is updated or needs to be replaced due to a security hole, then it isn't going to cause a great deal of headaches. I know, I just spent two days cleaning out more dependency hells from using a bad (IMHO) repo.

Package management is supposed to make our lives easier, not harder. Why should I have to spend two days to clean my computer to install one application that I need to test for work as.

Maybe a centralized index of build requirements is a better idea so all parties can build against the same specs.

Robin Laing

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]