Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jeff Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: January 18, 2009 11:37:43 AM EST
> To: "PLD: Developers list (English)" <email@example.com-
> Subject: Re: Merging PLD patches for RPM @rpm5.org
> Reply-To: "PLD: Developers list (English)" <firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
>> Jeff Johnson <email@example.com> [18-01-2009 16:31]:
>>> Is the AUTODEP_PKGNAMES portion of the rpm-pld-autodep.patch, which
>>> dependencies back to package names, actually useful/used by PLD? The
>> It has been turned off for Th, as it's an endless source of
>> for cases where multiple packages can satisfy a given dependency.
> ok, thanks.
> The case of multiple Provides: could be detected during the mapping
> and the mapping could be disabled (or build failed) when multiple
> are encountered.
> Does that permit AUTODEP_PKGNAMES to be useful/used by Th?
> Note that my personal POV is that the AUTODEP_PKGNAMES mapping is
> general because the mapping applies only to Requires:, ignoring all
> other dependencies.
> But the mapping to package names could be attempted for other
> dependencies too.
> 73 de Jeff
> pld-devel-en mailing list
Received on Sun Jan 18 17:42:24 2009