[Yum-devel] [PATCH] Use state-aware filename rpmdb index if rpm supports it

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 14:20 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 13:52 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 19:57 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > On 08/31/2011 05:59 PM, James Antill wrote:
> > > >   I guess we could add a new API ... but using that API for file requires
> > > > logic, when we'd have to ignore our current caches, seems less than
> > > > optimal.
> > > 
> > > Optimal or not, I just think correctness should always come before speed.
> >
> >  I'm not saying this is a bad thing for rpm to be doing ... but it's not
> > just a simple bugfix to get to 100% "fixed".
> 
>  Just tested and files are allowed in "conflicts", so this will now be
> valid:
> 
> rpm -Uvh foo*.rpm => installs both /usr/bin/foo's
> rpm -e foo.x86_64
> rpm -Uvh conflicts-foo*.rpm => "Fine" as it conflicts with /usr/bin/foo
> # At this point you can't upgrade or even reinstall foo.i686, even
> # though it's provides would be identical.
> 
> ...another maybe good rule we could do inside yum is to extend
> protected_multilib so that we only allow:
> 
> 1. Both foo.i686 and foo.x86_64 installed at once.
> 
> 2. foo.i686 installed on it's own.
> 
> 3. foo.x86_64 installed on it's own.
> 
> 4. foo.i686 can be removed on it's own.
> 
> ...so if you had foo.i686 installed then you couldn't install foo.x86_64
> without removing foo.i686 ... and if you had both installed, you
> couldn't remove just foo.x86_64. Basically just outlawing all the weird
> edge cases.
> 


Before we go too far down the path of legal action :) why don't we talk
to notting about the future multilib plans in fedora/rhel?

-sv