From: Oliver Frömel (oliver.froemel_at_konsultator.de)
Date: Tue Nov 06 2007 - 22:38:02 CET
From: Oliver Frömel <oliver.froemel@konsultator.de> Message-ID: <OFD404B858.EB24ECE2-ONC125738B.00755483-C125738B.0076CCF9@konsultator.de> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:38:02 +0100 Subject: Re: [suse-sles-e] Latest YOU update introduces new dependency for giflib
No Flame suggested, just a polite "please do".
Could you please handle these (probably) political issues ofline?
I *think* (having used Linux, SuSE and rpm for * quite* a number of years
now) that there's no "best way", but instead a way that's agreed and
handled and defined.
Discussing these kind of issues using the "sles-e" list is surely not the
right way, but I would accept this quietly....
If we all were interested, we would send other mails with other issues,
such should everybody else.
So, please keep the architecural things (meaning, the inevitable between
separate communities separate from the implentation and troubleshooting)
separate.
Robert Scheck <scheck@etes.de> wrote on 06.11.2007 19:02:30:
> Hello all,
>
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> > * Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> [Nov 06. 2007 18:19]:
> > > I think the problem here is:
> > >
> > > - mono-core was updated to fix security issues (in the
> BigInteger implementation).
> > > - mono-core has a "Recommends: libgdiplus", a soft dependency.
> > > - unfortunately the packagemanagement stack considered this as a
> good idea to install
> > > the libgdiplus RPM and its requirement giflib.
> >
> > Thats how 'Recommends' is defined. See
> >
http://en.opensuse.org/Software_Management/Dependencies#Weak_dependencies
>
> I know what weak dependencies are...I'm a rpm5.org member/guy.
>
> > > This is shortcoming of the updater I think :/
> >
> > I don't think that applying different dependency semantics for
installs
> > and updates is a good approach.
>
> Why is it a shortcoming of the updater? I didn't change any
configuration
> so this seems to be handled somewhere else - maybe in YaST? AFAIK the
weak
> dependencies are not the same as implemented in rpm5.org, but I still
can
> not image, that rpm itself does such things not at installing but during
an
> update of a package? IMHO the cause is within the update stack,
otherwise
> the implementation of the weak dependencies within rpm looks heavily
wrong.
>
> > > You can deinstall both libgdiplus and giflib again.
> >
> > Right.
>
> I can. But I first was forced by YOU to put a SLES DVD into the box.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Robert
>
> --
> Robert Scheck
> Web: http://www.etes.de E-Mail: scheck@etes.de
> ETES GmbH Libanonstrasse 58 A D-70184 Stuttgart
> Fon: +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 12 Fax: +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 50
>
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 721182
> Geschäftsführende Gesellschafter: Markus Espenhain und Jan Theofel
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart
> USt.-Id.Nr.: DE814767446
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-sles-e-unsubscribe@suse.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: suse-sles-e-help@suse.com
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-sles-e-unsubscribe@suse.com
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-sles-e-help@suse.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue Nov 06 2007 - 13:26:25 CET