On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Björn Persson <bjorn(a)xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> wrote:
Jan Silhan <jsilhan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10. 11. 2014 at 10:31:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > 3. The page says "The depsolver may offer to treat the weak like very
> > weak relations or the other way round" does dnf do that? or not?
>
> DNF doesn't do that and never will. IMO that would be too hackish
behavior.
You refuse to provide an option to pull in only required packages and
not recommended ones? So if I don't want some recommended package and
its dependencies in a slimmed system I should first let DNF install them
and then rpm --erase them? And if there isn't room to install them even
temporarily I'll have to avoid DNF and do the dependency resolution
manually?
Björn Persson
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
There are a couple of things that popped into my head about dependency
resolution behavior:
1. If a package recommends/suggests a package that may exist in an optional
repository, will dnf still properly resolve and install the package set
(minus the the recommended/suggested packages) if the optional repository
isn't active? That is, it won't throw an error and bomb out on "missing
dependencies"?
2. How does this affect circular dependency logic that has mixed-level
resolutions? For example, package A could have "recommends" in place for
package B and "suggests" for package C while package B has "requires"
for
package A and package C has "supplements" for package A.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!