----- "John5342" john5342@googlemail.com wrote:
Firstly, not all people turn the automatic upgrade on. Secondly, there are folks use rpm -hiv or build from srpm. In that case, they are more likely to spot the bugs.
I am not talking about upgrades. I am talking about updates. Most people just run updates when packagekit (or similar) tells them to. In a proper release updates are released together. In Denture they will be updated out of order and from various different releases. As for people rebuilding from srpms etc they represent a minority and it is in any case irrelevant.
What you said is true, but since what Denture is for unsupported released, which is unlikely getting any updated. Your case is not suitable for unsupported release.
If what you said is completely true, I would not even bother to
propose Denture. :-)
What i said is plain and simple fact. The scenario i mentioned is one of several points of failure. I am not suggesting it is a problem with Denture itself but it is a problem with the real world. Thats just life.
But the fact does not cover all packages, so that's why I need Denture, and take the risk. That's also life. :-)
This isn't about whether Y-1.3 will be pulled in. If you do what the vast majority of users do then you will get the equivelant of yum update. Regardless of whether X-1.3 explicitly specifies Y-1.3. Y-1.3 will still be updated siply because there is a later version. When you update using Denture however you could easily end up with X-1.3 and Y-1.2 for any number of reasons.
Yes I could hit the bump, so are the guys that using source build and other distribution which have not yet put Y-1.3 to their repos.
So do other package managers. Tell me, why are you so sure that the current version packages don't break the system secretly and user and the package managers has no way of knowing until it is too late?
If you read all i wrote then you will find that has been answered thoroughly already.
I also states my justification why the packages should specify the exact depended versions.
You have found the exceptions there. Try looking at some others.
I see. What I mainly need Denture help is for end-user applications. I am not quite sure about using Denture for library or toolkit directly.
I am sure even your dependency versions become stale. Taking your example of dvdauthor BuildRequires: libpng-devel BuildRequires: flex BuildRequires: bison BuildRequires: fribidi-devel BuildRequires: freetype-devel BuildRequires: GraphicsMagick-devel BuildRequires: autoconf automake gettext-devel
In a single release you perhaps can be pretty sure that the versions in the build root are good enough to satisfy dvdauthor. If on the other hand you end up with a version of one of these packages from a previous release due to blacklisting then things may well start to break.
Would you however insist that all of these are bugs?
Mmm, BuildRequires: libdvdread-devel >= 0.9.4-4 BuildRequires: libxml2-devel >= 2.6.0
Without these, dvdauthor might break even within current release. You were saying that version is not important? :-)
Nevertheless, you raise a valid point that version information is sometime unavailable or unreliable.
But this can be overcome by a datafile that stores correct version.
The result could be great but i can be pretty sure that the actually stability of a partially updated system is probably much worse than rawhide and people who are happy with that level of stability would ore than likely just prefer actual recent release
For people who requires absolute stable, they can just use CentOS/ RHEL and totally ignore Denture.
Denture is for the people that need to keep some critical packages, but wouldn't mind to take some risk. :-)
I like the idea because the concept is great. The idea that you can run whatever version of whatever package you want and get the best of all worlds is a nice dream but unfortunately i also know that it is only a dream and in real life it simply can't work because the huge requirements that Denture would place on packaging just can't be done.
"Whatever" is possibly the problem. Denture only eats what it can eat. :-) According to my experience, some of the dreams can come true.
When i was working on my project i quickly realised that for the reasons i have been trying to explain (falling on deaf ears apparently).
Please don't assume that I am not aware your concerns. Did you see my answers about them?
I really wish you all the best. I really do. I would love to be surprised and see it work but i won't be holding my breath. Good luck!
Thanks!
Ding Yi Chen wrote:
----- "John5342" john5342@googlemail.com wrote:
I am not talking about upgrades. I am talking about updates. Most people just run updates when packagekit (or similar) tells them to. In a proper release updates are released together. In Denture they will be updated out of order and from various different releases. As for people rebuilding from srpms etc they represent a minority and it is in any case irrelevant.
What you said is true, but since what Denture is for unsupported released, which is unlikely getting any updated. Your case is not suitable for unsupported release.
He was just explaining why packages tend not to have versioned dependencies in practice, and still work fine in supported Fedora releases. And you can't expect them to be "fixed" to support unsupported releases, those are unsupported for a reason.
Yes I could hit the bump, so are the guys that using source build and other distribution which have not yet put Y-1.3 to their repos.
Specfiles are per definition distribution-specific.
But this can be overcome by a datafile that stores correct version.
Good luck maintaining that monster file!
Kevin Kofler