On 27. 09. 21 15:01, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 27. 09. 21 10:22, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > 3. Similarly to above (perhaps exactly the same case), what happens when
> > package Q (not installed) starts supplementing package P (installed),
> will
> > it get auto-installed or not?
>
> No, Q will be not installed. With supplements it is difficult to known when
> it appears, because that information is not on RPMDB.
>
>
> While it makes sense technically, this might be quite confusing for packagers.
I've checked the status quo.
Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm".
"rpm" is
installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.
1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled in
2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what way?
I forgot to mention, here is a copr repo with reproducer_reversed: to play with
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/churchyard/reproducer_reversed/
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok