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.
>>>
>>> 1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled in
>>> 2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>>> 3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>>> 4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>>> 5. 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.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok