On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:06 +0200, Cezary Krzyżanowski wrote:
>
> 2007/8/1, Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there anything against switching all NameObsoletes
> (Obsoletes: gdm
> in kdm etc.) to conflicts or dropping them altogether?
>
> I am the admin and I want to decide what to install with what.
> If I
> want 2 login managers, that's my problem, if I want 3 smtp
> services,
> that's my problem.
>
> I'd suggest a help notice (I'm not sure is it possible with rpm -- I'd
> say poldek had to do it, as one of the nice features that drag ppl to
> us (mmazur(tm))). Something like:
> "You are trying to install package %{name} which provides %{provides},
> but you've already have a package providing %{provides} installed in
> your system: %{packages_having_the_provided_thing_list}.
>
> If you'd like to install it anyway use the --force option.
>
> Remember you have to manually configure the %{name} package to have it
> working side by side with %{packages_having_the_provided_thing_list}."
>
> That + implementing + 4 policies in poldek (automatically force,
> automatically ignore without error, automatically fail with error (the
> present poldeks behaviour), ask the user). I *think* some further
> checking is needed, as there will happen situation, when the conflict
> macro means that the packages literally can't be installed in the same
> system side-by-side. Using just Provides: makes so much sense to me -- I've wished I could have both installed at once several times without upgrades semi-silently removing one. (An arch developer asked me yesterday how PLD handled this.) Aria
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
