On Mar 24, 2008, at 8:28 AM, devzero2000 wrote:
> rpm 5, from version at least 4.4.6 seems, seem to offer all new
> types of dependencies resolution, but there is not or little
> information about it: The notes in the changelog do not illustrate
> at full the potentialities or at least the functionality. For
> example dependency name space, macro expanded dependency tokens,
> boolean valued dependency functions.... ( iirc from a mail of
> some year ago )
There's little usage of probe dependencies either.
Typically it takes 2-3 years for rpm implementations to be adopted.
Which means that I have another year or two to document
probe dependencies ;-) Seriously, I don't believe lack (or
existence) of documentation will affect rate of adoption at all. YMMV.
Meanwhile, each probe dependency was described when I
implemented on the old <firstname.lastname@example.org>
in some detail. I'm sure you have found the information already.
There have also been some efforts at http://rpm5.info to describe
runtime probe dependencies. But without real world usage cases,
its rather an academic exercise.
> Certainly, also the order of the dependencies is changed from the
> legacy rpm (think to erasure ordering)
Yup. all depends on what meaning one wants to attach to "erasure
What is in rpm-188.8.131.52.4.5.6 is known feeble and broken. Gud enuf seems
adequate for those without clue.
> It is possible to have some information in more on these topics?
> Someone use it already ?
> To me they seem too much interesting.
Meanwhile feel free to ask whatever questions you have. I can
easily (and happily) supply information as needed. If there's
sufficient need, I'll write up what is currently implemented.
Again, I do not believe lack/existence of documentation has
any relation to rate of adoption. The release engineering to
deploy a new version of rpm iis non-tivial, and s what limits
the rate of adoption of Newer! Better! Bestest! features in *.rpm
73 de Jeff
Received on Tue Mar 25 16:04:23 2008