On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:29:42PM +0200, Aleksey Cheusov wrote: > >> 1) TONS of packages do not set CONFLICTS variable properly. > > > Yes, it is. > I personally think that missed CONFLICTS is critical bug and > most of them MUST be fixed before 2008Q4 happens. The criticality (-ness? -hood?) of bug is, thankfully, subjective. > What's your plans? > For this one day noone even tried to use/test wip/pkg_conflicts. Sending a 1000-odd line post to the lists, several times, doesn't exactly sound like good publicity to me. [...] > >> 3) Why not to remove CONFLICTS variable at all? > > > How to detect CONFLISTS before installation from source? > Filenames from currently installed package (before unpacking) should be > checked > against filenames stored in database. I honestly don't know how to qualify that proposition in a way that doesn't sound offensive. So I'll just say it's completely stupid. Package conflicts and dependencies are the same information, they're needed at the metadata level for any basic package management. Whether or not we can obtain information about conflicts in a somewhat automated way is a different issue. But the current situation certainly isn't as scandalous as you seem to believe. Now, if you manage to get some people interested in actually solving the issues you expose instead of just stating they exist (in a rather obnoxious way, I have to say), that would be a step forward. There is definitely a lot of information we could get from bulk build results that we currently don't retrieve, and a fortiori don't use. (Although it must still be taken with care; a bulk build is specific to the platform it has run on.) -- Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost "See the look on my face from staying too long in one place [...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling" KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
Description: PGP signature