On Tue, 07 Aug 2012, Pascal Terjan wrote: > 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 If a system is obsolete with the new distribution and known to break 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...
Maybe we could change task-obsolete to conflict with obsolete packages instead of obsoleting them : - people who want to remove unsupported packages from their system install task-obsolete - people who don't want to remove unsupported packages don't install task-obsolete This will also make urpmi/rpmdrake warn before removing packages, instead of silently removing them.
