Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1165 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Repository consistency checklist
  • From: Klaus Kaempf <kkaempf@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:02:22 +0100
  • Message-id: <20061102150222.GD8913@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
* Andreas Hanke <andreas.hanke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [Oct 21. 2006 20:36]:
> This is a short specification of requirements for a consistent repository.

Is _a_ consistent repository desirable ?

Probably not. The consistency requirement is only on the client side,
the set of repositories as seen by the client should be consistent.

So I'll comment on your specification with a set of repositories
in mind.


>
> (1) All requirements of binary packages must be provided by a binary
> package.

Beware. There are hard (requires) and weak (recommends) requirements.
Only the hard requirements must be provided (or weakened ;-))

>
> (2) All build-requirements of source packages must be provided by a
> binary package.

Agreed.

>
> (3) The SOURCERPM tag of every binary package must exactly match an
> existing source package.

Agreed.

>
> (4) All packages which are provided for more than one architecture
> should be provided with the same version and release numbers on all
> architectures.

This is indeed desirable but not feasible in the real world.
For example, sun-java is not available for all architectures. On SLES,
we ship ibm-java for some architectures.

>
> (5) No package may obsolete another package that still exists in the
> distribution. Only packages which are no longer part of the distribution
> may be obsoleted.

Agreed. Use 'conflicts' to express mutually exclusive packages.

>
> (6) No file in the distribution may be provided by more than one package
> unless all its providers are marked as conflicting.

RPM (and the dependency solver) take care of this. There is no need
for an explicit conflict.

>
> (7) No package may replace something that existed as a directory in at
> least the direct predecessor of the currently prepared distribution with
> a file or a symlink or vice versa unless the rpm breakage caused by this
> is worked around with %pre scriptlets or similar.

Sound more like an rpm bug to me ;-)

>
> (8) Packages that provide the same thing can indicate bugs, and fool the
> package manager into installing the wrong package. There are cases where
> providing the same thing in multiple packages makes sense (example:
> alternative backends for multimedia players), but the tree should be
> investigated for cases where this does not make any sense and can be
> dangerous (example: private copies of libraries which also exist as a
> public library).

This is probably very hard to check.


For every rule given above, we should find means to verify/enforce it. This
might be the hardest part of this proposal.


Klaus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread
  • No further messages