V Sat, May 18, 2024 at 08:20:53PM +0200, Sandro napsal(a): > On 16-05-2024 13:14, Petr Pisar wrote: > > A workaround could be rpm-build or mock to register rpm-build package in > > /etc/dnf/protected.d configuration files. Packages listed there are > > prevented > > from removal no matter of --allow-erasing. > > A bit late to the party, but I was wondering if making `add-determinism` and > `add-determinism-nopython` require `rpm-build` would also achieve > `rpm-build` being protected from removal as a workaround. > > If either package requires it there should only be one way forward, if my > understanding of the issue is correct. > That's also a possible way. Many times defining the reverse dependendency can be justified as (add-determinism) being a plugin (of rpm-build). It also helps cleaning useless plugins (add-determinism) when the framework (rpm-build) is uinstalled.
A drawback is creating dependency loop. -- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
