Merging PLD patches for RPM @rpm5.org

[Radoslaw Zielinski]

Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com> [18-01-2009 17:37]:
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
>> Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com> [18-01-2009 16:31]:
>> [...]
>>> Is the AUTODEP_PKGNAMES portion of the rpm-pld-autodep.patch, which
>>> maps dependencies back to package names, actually useful/used by PLD?
>> No.
>> It has been turned off for Th, as it's an endless source of annoyances
>> for cases where multiple packages can satisfy a given dependency.

> ok, thanks.

> The case of multiple Provides: could be detected during the mapping
> and the mapping could be disabled (or build failed) when multiple
> Provides: are encountered.

> Does that permit AUTODEP_PKGNAMES to be useful/used by Th?

No, as that would only work for already installed packages.  You might
have conflicting packages, which satisfy the same dependency (or just
not have all of the alternatives installed at build time).

It's just so much easier to accept the fact, that to resolve dependencies
you need multiple data sets (name, epoch, version, release, provides,
requires, %files, conflicts, obsoletes), than to mess around with
%_noautoreq and fake provides trying to fit everything into the
%name/version/release.

-- 
Radosław Zieliński <radek at pld-linux.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/attachments/20090118/af177362/attachment.sig