[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: Testing libsatsolver on Fedora
From:       Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar () redhat ! com>
Date:       2009-07-31 18:30:35
Message-ID: 20090731183035.GA31511 () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:19:19PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> We have a policy that forbids non-explicit file conflicts, yes.

I thought it applied to regular conflicts, now I see in the document
there are some exceptions allowed.

> If you have two pkgs and you know foo owns a file that bar also owns - 
> you are obligated to put an explicit conflict in place.
 
That might be a nice createrepo feature to add such conflicts.

> The reason why yum doesn't detect them is b/c the metadata about files  
> does not include color and checksum (mainly b/c if we did include that in 
> the filelists metadata it would be outrageously large) If the satsolver 
> is going to detect those then it will have to be AFTER it downloads all 
> the rpms.
>
> Do you see what I mean?

Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean the explicit
conflicts between current versions of packages. I.e. the thing that
makes the complexity exponential.

For example:
package A: depends on X
package B: conflicts with D
package C: provides X
package D: provides X

yum install A B fails here as it tries to install A B D. The solution
is to install A B C.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]