On 11. 10. 21 21:10, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:49 AM Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
I've checked the status quo.
Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm" is installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.
- dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled in
- dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
- dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
- dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
- dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what way?
Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that "reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or perhaps just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a definitive answer.
It might be worth renaming the option "exclude_from_weak_autodetect" to imply its actual effect.
Strawman idea: "weakexclude_unsatisfied_weakdeps_on_upgrade"?
If I understand this right, it won't be only on upgrade. Also on reinstall, downgrade, etc.