[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release task-obsolete-3-1.mga3

[andre999]

Colin Guthrie a écrit :
> 'Twas brillig, and Jani Välimaa at 29/05/12 16:13 did gyre and gimble:
>    
>> On 29.05.2012 17:38, Sander Lepik wrote:
>>      
>>> 29.05.2012 17:14, wally kirjutas:
>>>        
>>>> Name        : task-obsolete                Relocations: (not relocatable)
>>>> Version     : 3                                 Vendor: Mageia.Org
>>>> Release     : 1.mga3                        Build Date: Tue May 29
>>>> 15:59:18 2012
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> wally<wally>  3-1.mga3:
>>>> + Revision: 249259
>>>> - obsolete old libxfce4menu pkgs
>>>>          
>>> Hmm, since when do we obsolete libs like this?
>>>
>>>        
>> Since task-obsolete was introduced. It's a way to get rid of old,
>> obsoleted and unused pkgs which are also removed from SVN (moved to
>> /packages/obsolete/).
>>      
> I wasn't aware we ever did this and I can't think of a good reason to do
> so either so I would prefer this change was reverted (and any other old
> libs in there similarly removed from obsoletion).
>
> There is a difference between no longer shipping something and no longer
> supporting it being installed. If I've compiled my own software against
> any given library I do not want something to remove it automatically and
> break my build. That's the whole point in having library packaging the
> way we do - to allow them to live on mostly forever on an installed
> system. If we no longer support something being installed then using
> task-obsoletes seems wise.
>    
+1
If there is no real conflict, why remove a package automatically ?
A good example of such a problem is OpenOffice being removed by Libreoffice.
There was no real conflict, as all files were installed in different 
locations.  As well, the 2 programs could even be run simultaneously.
Although mdv Openoffice was Go-ooo and Libreoffice contained much of the 
same code, they didn't function identically.
So Libo removing Ooo automatically was abusive of a user's right to 
choose what is installed in their system.
If it is advisable that such a package should be removed, the user 
should be asked before removal.

Another point :
If would be a good idea if only mga packages would be removed.
(For mga1, that would have been mdv.)
If the user chooses to install a package from another source, it 
shouldn't be unistalled by a mga package.

For version upgrades of the same package, or things like gcc, there 
would be real conflicts,
so this wouldn't apply.
> Users are then responsible for removing old library packages they no
> longer want from their system using either the urpme --auto-orphans or
> urpmq --not-available.
>
> Maybe I've misunderstood the intention here, and if so feel free to
> correct me!
>
> Col
>
>    
My 2 cents :)

-- 
André