Hi, On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Michael Ströder wrote:
Michael Matz wrote:
But another thing is also true: installation routines that rely on package names are inherently flawed, there are all sorts of reasons to rename packages
Which is a pretty big F*** Y** to all DevOps coders out there.
No, it's simply stating the truth. It always has been a bad idea to rely on package names, and always will be. If that's news to all DevOps coders (I don't know, but am surprised by that) then their thinking is the problem. But to be honest I don't see the problem: If somebody is a coder and is able to retrieve packages by name, then it's trivial to add a layer of indirection and instead refer to them by a Provide (or similar concept for the other packaging system).
I also wonder what SLES product managers will say about this (if you dare to really explain the details to them).
I happen to know that they agree with me. We had customers who relied on package names in their installation routines. We eventually managed to explain to them that that's a bad idea.
I give up here and will take another route. Goodbye.
As you wish. Ciao, Michael.