On 10 December 2012 15:27, nicolas vigier <[email protected]> wrote: >> I totally agree with Johnny here. If users want to keep unmaintained and >> no-longer-supplied packages on their machine (obviously making a >> concious decision to not get security updates etc. on such packages) >> then they are welcome to add task-obsolete to their urpmi skip lists. >> >> I see absolutely no problem with this and I don't consider this >> something that's done as a "side effect", rather it's a quite deliberate >> and concious mechanism to remove no longer supported packages from a >> users machine. > > One of the problem with task-obsolete obsoleting packages is that it can > silently uninstall packages and break something which was working, > without warning. > > Maybe instead of obsoleting packages, task-obsolete could conflict with > those packages :
That won't work, if it's a conflicts instead of an obsoletes, urpmi/drakx/rpmdrake will _never_ pick it. That's just not the way it works. > - users who want to remove unsupported packages install task-obsolete, > and have a warning from rpmdrake/urpmi before conflicting packages > are removed Meaning nobody will install it in practice. Meaning people will have some unsecure packages b/c 0.001% want to keep an unsecure/unmaintained stuff, meaning we'll got bug reports about packages we don't maintain anymore. > - users who don't want to remove unsupported packages don't install > task-obsolete. They can still ask urpmi to install task-obsolete to > see the list of packages it would remove. > > Or we can stop using task-obsolete package, and instead create a file > "unsupported" in media_info directory on the mirrors containing a list > of unsupported packages, and used by urpmq/urpme --unsupported to > list/remove unsupported packages. That would mean most people will never see it where 0.0001% of users would want them not to be installed. My 2 cents
