On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 12:53 +0200, Michael Mraka wrote: > And for the rest > > rpm -q --whatrequires E > rpm -q --whatrequires F > rpm -q --whatrequires G > rpm -q --whatrequires H > rpm -q --whatrequires I > > it depends on which strategy we will agree. It's either "richdep" for > loose one or for strict one it depends on current rpmdb status. > > Here is couple of reasons why I'd prefer "loose" semantic: > > - Currently if there is a package with broken dep A (e.g. installed with > rpm --nodeps) then --whatrequires A reports it. > - Weak deps --whatsuggests, --whatrecommends, etc. As weak deps can naturally > be unsatisfied and that's correct, the answer for > rpm --whatsuggests A > should report possible breakage not the currently installed packages. > - And then there's dnf where 'dnf repoquery --whatrequires' also should report > all (possibly) broken packages.
Here is why I'd suggest strict is better: - User is almost always asking for information about the system, when using rpm. And we are basically ignoring system state with loose. - If the user wants "loose" then "repoquery --whatrequires" can provide that information, so the user can see both bits of info. - There should be another command that tells the user what they can do to fix a system in --nodeps state (in yum we had "yum check", but I think with the solver it could be much better). _______________________________________________ Rpm-ecosystem mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
