On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Tom G. Christensen wrote:

Steve Huff wrote:
 On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:46 AM, Tom G. Christensen wrote:

Ah yes, this is the real issue, the need to alert the user that a system package is being replaced.

I feel strongly that deliberately breaking packages is the wrong way to deal with the "alert the user that he's replacing a system package" problem. It gives a bad user experience which will reflect badly on RPMforge and even worse it encourages dangerous use of rpm (rpm --force).

If you want to give a special status to the perl packages, then put them in a special repository instead of breaking the packages.

Right, seems logical. But then why are we adding this package, not because it is newer, we add it because another package depends on this one. So the logical next step is to also add the other package to this special repository.

But what then happens when you have tools that need this dependency, but can also work with the original perl module. But one of them might break. Suddenly you cannot use the special repository for application X, while maybe application Y needs it.

And that's where the **** hits the fan.

I agree that the current situation is not a good one. I could once again state that this is because of yum, since apt would not propose to update it. But I also don't see a good fix for this.

My preference would be to not replace upstream packages, and have a second repository that does replace packages and carefully test also with both repositories. But even if we do that, we will have to be very conservative in what we would add. And make sure we don't add non-leaf (packages that are a dependency of other packages).

Which would basicly mean we would drop this package altogether, together with a dozen others (and all their dependencies).

--
--   dag wieers,  [email protected],  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to