[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release task-obsolete-3-1.mga3

Wed May 30 04:51:27 CEST 2012

Colin Guthrie a écrit :
+> 'Twas brillig, and Jani Välimaa at 29/05/12 16:13 did gyre and gimble:
+>    
+>> On 29.05.2012 17:38, Sander Lepik wrote:
+>>      
+>>> 29.05.2012 17:14, wally kirjutas:
+>>>        
+>>>> Name        : task-obsolete                Relocations: (not relocatable)
+>>>> Version     : 3                                 Vendor: Mageia.Org
+>>>> Release     : 1.mga3                        Build Date: Tue May 29
+>>>> 15:59:18 2012
+>>>> [...]
+>>>>
+>>>> wally<wally>  3-1.mga3:
+>>>> + Revision: 249259
+>>>> - obsolete old libxfce4menu pkgs
+>>>>          
+>>> Hmm, since when do we obsolete libs like this?
+>>>
+>>>        
+>> Since task-obsolete was introduced. It's a way to get rid of old,
+>> obsoleted and unused pkgs which are also removed from SVN (moved to
+>> /packages/obsolete/).
+>>      
+> I wasn't aware we ever did this and I can't think of a good reason to do
+> so either so I would prefer this change was reverted (and any other old
+> libs in there similarly removed from obsoletion).
+>
+> There is a difference between no longer shipping something and no longer
+> supporting it being installed. If I've compiled my own software against
+> any given library I do not want something to remove it automatically and
+> break my build. That's the whole point in having library packaging the
+> way we do - to allow them to live on mostly forever on an installed
+> system. If we no longer support something being installed then using
+> task-obsoletes seems wise.
+>    
++1
+If there is no real conflict, why remove a package automatically ?
+A good example of such a problem is OpenOffice being removed by Libreoffice.
+There was no real conflict, as all files were installed in different 
+locations.  As well, the 2 programs could even be run simultaneously.
+Although mdv Openoffice was Go-ooo and Libreoffice contained much of the 
+same code, they didn't function identically.
+So Libo removing Ooo automatically was abusive of a user's right to 
+choose what is installed in their system.
+If it is advisable that such a package should be removed, the user 
+should be asked before removal.
+
+Another point :
+If would be a good idea if only mga packages would be removed.
+(For mga1, that would have been mdv.)
+If the user chooses to install a package from another source, it 
+shouldn't be unistalled by a mga package.
+
+For version upgrades of the same package, or things like gcc, there 
+would be real conflicts,
+so this wouldn't apply.
+> Users are then responsible for removing old library packages they no
+> longer want from their system using either the urpme --auto-orphans or
+> urpmq --not-available.
+>
+> Maybe I've misunderstood the intention here, and if so feel free to
+> correct me!
+>
+> Col
+>
+>    
+My 2 cents :)
+
+-- 
+André
+
+