Colin Guthrie a écrit :
'Twas brillig, and Jani Välimaa at 29/05/12 16:13 did gyre and gimble:
On 29.05.2012 17:38, Sander Lepik wrote:
29.05.2012 17:14, wally kirjutas:
Name : task-obsolete Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 3 Vendor: Mageia.Org
Release : 1.mga3 Build Date: Tue May 29
15:59:18 2012
[...]
wally<wally> 3-1.mga3:
+ Revision: 249259
- obsolete old libxfce4menu pkgs
Hmm, since when do we obsolete libs like this?
Since task-obsolete was introduced. It's a way to get rid of old,
obsoleted and unused pkgs which are also removed from SVN (moved to
/packages/obsolete/).
I wasn't aware we ever did this and I can't think of a good reason to do
so either so I would prefer this change was reverted (and any other old
libs in there similarly removed from obsoletion).
There is a difference between no longer shipping something and no longer
supporting it being installed. If I've compiled my own software against
any given library I do not want something to remove it automatically and
break my build. That's the whole point in having library packaging the
way we do - to allow them to live on mostly forever on an installed
system. If we no longer support something being installed then using
task-obsoletes seems wise.
+1
If there is no real conflict, why remove a package automatically ?
A good example of such a problem is OpenOffice being removed by Libreoffice.
There was no real conflict, as all files were installed in different
locations. As well, the 2 programs could even be run simultaneously.
Although mdv Openoffice was Go-ooo and Libreoffice contained much of the
same code, they didn't function identically.
So Libo removing Ooo automatically was abusive of a user's right to
choose what is installed in their system.
If it is advisable that such a package should be removed, the user
should be asked before removal.
Another point :
If would be a good idea if only mga packages would be removed.
(For mga1, that would have been mdv.)
If the user chooses to install a package from another source, it
shouldn't be unistalled by a mga package.
For version upgrades of the same package, or things like gcc, there
would be real conflicts,
so this wouldn't apply.
Users are then responsible for removing old library packages they no
longer want from their system using either the urpme --auto-orphans or
urpmq --not-available.
Maybe I've misunderstood the intention here, and if so feel free to
correct me!
Col
My 2 cents :)
--
André
