On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Olivier Thauvin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Many people already complain about it, but for me task-obsolete must > die.
I don't think so, but people should not be allowed to add random obsoletes there. > First I just remove but urpmi claim it must come back on my system... > probably because it claim to replace lib64db5.2, even maybe still need > it. > > Secondly it contains non-sense dependencies: > Obsoletes: lib64db5.2 < 5.2.42-3 > > Any lib64db5.2 over this version will by definition obsoletes any > packages having same name. > So this mean anyone can keep the lib64db5.2 as soon the release tag > is increased or someone push into mga 2 / update any libdb higher > than 5.2.42 (5.2.43 for example). > > Moreover, any package lacking of requirements during an upgrade is > removed by urpmi. > > I no-one complain, I'll do a major cleanup (eg removing everything at > least everything starting by lib) in package this week > > But I am still in favor to remove it. In past, package we didn't want to > support anymore was just removed from mirrors, and this was enough to > show their status. But people will not be notified of it. If a system is obsolete with the new distribution and known to break things/contain major security problems, I think having a place to put the obsoletes is good. But really I wouldn't expect more than 2 or 3 such packages in a release...
