Distributions going smart & bugfixes?

[Axel Thimm]

Sorry for the late reply I kinda missed this one.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 08:01:50AM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2009, at 5:32 AM, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 01:15:11PM -0800, Michael Jennings wrote:
>>> On Friday, 09 January 2009, at 08:29:26 (+0200),
>>>> Probably depends on what rpm branch you're talking about - since
>>>> rpm.org is used in Fedora 10 and the latter is using more and more
>>>> such dependency loops/conglomerations it would be quite funny if the
>>>> Fedora rpm developers wouldn't notice killing their coworkers work.
>>>
>>> Well, there is only 1 "Fedora rpm developer," and I'm pretty sure you
>>> were referring to the "Red Hat rpm.org developers."
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean, but aren't these days "Red Hat developers"
>> automatically "Fedora developers"? Or rephrased: Isn't Fedora rpm
>> development in rpm.org just going to end up in RHEL6/7 etc? There are
>> Fedora developers that are not Red Hat (or RHEL) developers, but only
>> very few Red Hat developers not working on Fedora.
>>
>>> Regardless of the errors Fedora packagers make, there is really no
>>> such thing as a dependency loop that is not inflicted by a packager.
>>
>> Even max-rpm discusses dependecy loops as a valid instrument, although
>> it recommends against them. And it mentiones the PreReq vs Requires
>> mechanism that was used to reorder packages within a loop.
>>
>> Furthermore the packages looping are packaged by the eldest of the Red
>> Hat folks, so w/o seeking into archives I can just assume that the
>> loops or conglomerations are known and accepted not to be
>> errors.
>>
>> Therefore you can't consider this a repo problem and ask the packager
>> to "fix" it.
>>
>>> (Otherwise, bootstrapping would be impossible.)
>>
>> There are "loops" in packages needed to bootstrap a minimal Fedora >=
>> 10, so there doesn't seem to be an issue with bootstraping otherwise
>> there wouldn't exist a Fedora 10.
>>
>> Consider a "loop" of the above kind like packages that are only
>> accepted in pairs or tripples (or more) to be installed. The
>> requirement for such loops is that the order they are installed is not
>> important, e..g the dependencies are runtime, not installtime.
>>
>> One can start discussing whether this is a good thing or not (up to
>> now this was only a discussion whether this exists or not), but this
>> is probably the wrong list to do that, the various rpm lists are
>> better for that. From smart's perspective it just needs to know that
>> this scenario exists and that it needs to cope with it (like it
>> already does with the bugfixes).
>
> You know, arguing about dependency loops, and counting RPM developers,
> and quoting from the Greek Bible of "Maximum RPM" , on a smart list,
> in 2009, is even more of a waste of time than adding %{?dist}  
> everywhere.

Whatever you say. Just note that the dependency loops of 2009 made
smart bail out and needing a fix. That's what this thread was about.

> FYI: Remember your input onto EVR comparisons? There's a fair to
> middling chance that EVR can be "unified" between dpkg <-> RPM and
> included in LSB 4.0.

Not sure how this relates and neither which one of my inputs of EVR
comparisons, but I look forward to LSB 4.0.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.labix.org/pipermail/smart-labix.org/attachments/20090215/e1c3975a/attachment-0002.pgp>