On 2014-08-28, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:55:56AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
>> In my opinion, it would be much more appreciated if Fedora had
>> a mechanism to express "I want support for PDF" on the installed system
>> and then package manager would use this boolean to in
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:55:56AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2014-08-25, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Or we can wait for F21, which will have weak dependencies in RPM. And
> > I anticipate that weak dependencies will break a lot of circles.
> >
> Does Fedora have guidelines what should and what s
On 2014-08-25, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Or we can wait for F21, which will have weak dependencies in RPM. And
> I anticipate that weak dependencies will break a lot of circles.
>
Does Fedora have guidelines what should and what should not be a weak
dependency?
My experience with Perl packages is t
On 2014-08-24, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Installation scripting is not the only source of the problem. Perl
> modules have been prone to this.
>
> * Perl module A requires perl module B.
> * Perl module B requires perl module C.
> * One small script or macro in module C requires one small script
On 08/24/2014 04:37 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Installation scripting is not the only source of the problem. Perl
modules have been prone to this.
* Perl module A requires perl module B.
* Perl module B requires perl module C.
* One small script or macro in module C requires one small script
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> On 08/22/2014 02:23 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>> >The scenario I am concerned with here is:
>> >
>> >if
>> > * A requires B
>> > * B requires C
>> > * C requires A
>> >
>> >This
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 08/22/2014 02:23 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> >The scenario I am concerned with here is:
> >
> >if
> > * A requires B
> > * B requires C
> > * C requires A
> >
> >This basically yields a case where ordering can't be properly done b
On 08/22/2014 02:23 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
The scenario I am concerned with here is:
if
* A requires B
* B requires C
* C requires A
This basically yields a case where ordering can't be properly done because
rpm doesn't know which dependency is stronger. If all of the rpms in question
just
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:11:25PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 22.08.2014 um 21:53 schrieb Dusty Mabe:
> > I know I have probably been hiding under a Rock but can anyone help me
> > understand Fedora's stance on circular dependencies within RPMs?
> >
> > At least in the past I think circu
Am 22.08.2014 um 21:53 schrieb Dusty Mabe:
> I know I have probably been hiding under a Rock but can anyone help me
> understand Fedora's stance on circular dependencies within RPMs?
>
> At least in the past I think circular dependencies have been kept to a minimum
> as it can cause issues with
I know I have probably been hiding under a Rock but can anyone help me
understand Fedora's stance on circular dependencies within RPMs?
At least in the past I think circular dependencies have been kept to a minimum
as it can cause issues with rpm sorting: i.e. for two rpms A,B with a circular
de
11 matches
Mail list logo
