Hi, On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Martin Vidner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 02:18:23PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett wrote:
- Use the solver, and during parsing inject something like provides:fix(bugzilla:23444) when filling the repodata. Then applications could inject a requires in the solver fix(bugzilla:23444) and just solve. I dont't know the consequences of this.
I don't think this would be a good idea.
Why?
Conceptual inelegance always hints at some real problem hiding :)
Because of flooding the solver with unnecessary data?
For instance. And because it is no provide :) I also would fear that, should we implement this as provides, someone goes and thinks it would be a good idea to add heaps and heaps of such virtual provides also to normal packages, whenever they fix some bug. Then there's the problem how to _really_ model this as provides in the solver sense. E.g. what if a bugfix needs two packages? Making them both provide fix(bla) would still require only one of them to be fulfilled. No, I don't think we should try to force this piece of information into the solver corset. Make it easily searchable (we have that already), and expose this to the user.
We do that all the time with autoprovides don't we?
In a way, yes. But we shouldn't follow bad examples, should we? Ciao, Michael. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: zypp-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: zypp-devel+help@opensuse.org