Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.12.0 alpha released
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 03:17:22PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
On 6/27/14, 9:41 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
- Support for weak dependency tags (suggests, recommends etc)
I finally got a chance to look at this, and I'm a bit concerned with what is
there.
The 'SUGGESTS' and 'ENHANCES' combo should be using the Requires/Provides
with the RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK. This way they are ignored when not available,
but directly affect the installer ordering during dependency resolution.
RPMSENSE_MISSINGIOK is a hack and storing Enhances with the Provides
dependencies makes no sense at all. It's much cleaner to use different
tags instead of trying to force them into existing tags. And we need
to support four groups (Suggests,Recommends,Enhances,Supplements).
The dep solver (i.e. the application on top of rpm) mostly uses
repository metadata and thus does not care much about where the
deps are stored inside rpm.
Rpm itself uses dependencies both for verification and ordering
purposes. For verification, the dependencies are not needed at all,
as they can always be broken. Thus ordering remains. We (SUSE)
currently ignore weak deps in the ordering step, and I don't know
of any ordering issue (we have them since 2006).
I know the complaint in the past is third party tools don't know how to
process MISSINGOK. (IMHO that's a bug in the external tools, they should
be updated.) One alternative could be to use the new weak dependency tags
and 'adapt' them to the MISSINGOK internally so that the dep solver could
continue to work as it has. (It still causes some issues for me with the
actual package contents/format though.)
Note: rpm 'suggests' had previously been implemented to work the same way
that 'recommends' was implemented in Debian.. so the swap in names may be a
bit confusing -- but the purpose is that this is something that should be
installed if available, but not fail.
the other, 'recommends', was something that was added to work like
'suggests' from Debian. It's just suggested to the user, but does affect
the install in any way.
As said, SUSE uses suggests/recommends since 2006 in a Debian
compatible way, it makes no sense to use to swap them.
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Jeff Hawn, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.12.0 alpha released
On 6/27/14, 9:41 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: - Support for weak dependency tags (suggests, recommends etc) I finally got a chance to look at this, and I'm a bit concerned with what is there. The 'SUGGESTS' and 'ENHANCES' combo should be using the Requires/Provides with the RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK. This way they are ignored when not available, but directly affect the installer ordering during dependency resolution. I know the complaint in the past is third party tools don't know how to process MISSINGOK. (IMHO that's a bug in the external tools, they should be updated.) One alternative could be to use the new weak dependency tags and 'adapt' them to the MISSINGOK internally so that the dep solver could continue to work as it has. (It still causes some issues for me with the actual package contents/format though.) Note: rpm 'suggests' had previously been implemented to work the same way that 'recommends' was implemented in Debian.. so the swap in names may be a bit confusing -- but the purpose is that this is something that should be installed if available, but not fail. the other, 'recommends', was something that was added to work like 'suggests' from Debian. It's just suggested to the user, but does affect the install in any way. ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.12.0 alpha released
On 06/29/2014 01:51 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 06/27/2014 04:41 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: - Support for files over 4GB in packages Is the new payload format documented somewhere? It seems to use the FX index in a pseudo-cpio header instead of duplicating the data from the header, but it would be nice to to see this spelled out explicitly. Not yet. It should probably be added to the rpm.org page describing the file format. Be aware that we have not yet decided on making the new format part of the API. Note also that we added an API for accessing the payload data. Have a look at the rpm2archive(.c) utility to get an idea how it works. Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.12.0 alpha released
On 06/27/2014 04:41 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: - Support for files over 4GB in packages Is the new payload format documented somewhere? It seems to use the FX index in a pseudo-cpio header instead of duplicating the data from the header, but it would be nice to to see this spelled out explicitly. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
