On 06/12/2007, Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov@suse.cz> wrote:
At the beginning I thought libzypp was making everything more complex, but I think PackageKit is also asking the wrong question.
Yes, it sounds like they are oversimplifying dependency resolution.
Hmm, sent this earlier, seems to have vanished into the aether, sorry if it arrives twice. Bear in mind that the whole point of packagekit is that it has to be possible to implement it with fairly disparate package management systems. As I understand it RPM packages both provide and require things (ignoring other types of dependency), and provides are used to resolve requires. However, as I understand it debian packages only have requirements which must be packages. If more than one package can provide something they have to require a metapackage, which is still a valid package. So listing the packages a package requires makes more sense on debian systems. If the packagekit API were too close to the RPM way of doing things it could become difficult or impossible to implement on other package management systems. There are plenty of things possible on other package management systems such as conary which would not be possible with zypp, so it's good that they don't have to be implemented. Packagekit implementation is always doomed to be a lowest common denominator of what can be achieved with all package management systems. Nevertheless it is still worthwhile doing, because even this subset of package management functionality is still very useful to be able to use from desktop applications in a distribution agnostic way. -- Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: zypp-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: zypp-devel+help@opensuse.org