Dependencies [was: Re: bugs, bugs, bugs!]
Michael Schwendt
ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de
Wed Jul 30 10:52:37 UTC 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:41:09 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> On systems lacking a complete package database to query, the explicit
> naming of the depended on packages would solve the problem of unknown
> dependencies. Splitting a package and moving a library to a new package
> would possibly leave a redundant package requirement in a depending on
> rpm, but the requirement for the library would be still available. If a
> package maintainer did miss such a library split the redundant package
> requirement would most probably not harm and be updated as soon as
> spotted.
>
> Consistently mentioning both the required packages as well as the
> libraries would make the rpm db system more self-contained and probably
> solve a lot of dependency problems.
For some packages such a list of explicit requirements can get
pretty long and would require an extra maintenance effort. For
instance, not only when depending packages are renamed or when the
dependencies of a package change (user would install redundant
stuff). But also when a particular version of a library is found
only in a particular package revision. We should rely on tools which
solve the dependencies for us and which find out what package to
install to get libfoo.so.3.
> On systems lacking a complete package database to query,
... there should be an alternative way like querying a remote
package database server.
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/J6N10iMVcrivHFQRAjV/AJ9m7yl3VZV93Kd1pZ8k5D+W8q4TowCggbjz
M46F+X1niiBvufAUXO6IjtU=
=atjA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list