nicolas vigier a écrit :
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If a system is obsolete with the new distribution and known to break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.
+1
Conflicts would also make it easier to remove task-obsolete, if one had
inadvertantly installed it.
--
André
