On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 03:01:43PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 15:17 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > The change owner proposed 4 options to move forward. I understand them as > > follows: > > > > 1. do nothing, keep it broken > > 2. disable this behavior by default, keep it optional, but keep it broken > > 3. do not ignore already broken weak rich deps (partially reverts the > > change) > > 4. change the behavior on dynamically depending on the dnf command used > > (discouraged) > > It's not clear to me whether any of these choices maps to "revert the > Change and do exactly what F35 and earlier did", but on principle, that > is the correct choice if no other choice is an improvement. It is not > useful to change to a new behavior which is no better than the old > behavior. If the Change can't be implemented as planned, ideally no > change should happen at all.
Option 2. is that. The code to support this has been merged in libsolv and dnf, so it's easier to return to status quo ante by flipping the default, then to fully undo all changes. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
