Status of weak dependencies support in Fedora 21+

[Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ)]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Björn Persson <bjorn at rombobjörn.se> wrote:

> Jan Silhan <jsilhan at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 10. 11. 2014 at 10:31:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > 3. The page says "The depsolver may offer to treat the weak like very
> > > weak relations or the other way round" does dnf do that? or not?
> >
> > DNF doesn't do that and never will. IMO that would be too hackish
> behavior.
>
> You refuse to provide an option to pull in only required packages and
> not recommended ones? So if I don't want some recommended package and
> its dependencies in a slimmed system I should first let DNF install them
> and then rpm --erase them? And if there isn't room to install them even
> temporarily I'll have to avoid DNF and do the dependency resolution
> manually?
>
> Björn Persson
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>

​There are a couple of things that popped into my head about dependency
resolution behavior:

1. If a package recommends/suggests a package that may exist in an optional
repository, will dnf still properly resolve and install the package set
(minus the the recommended/suggested packages)​ if the optional repository
isn't active? That is, it won't throw an error and bomb out on "missing
dependencies"?

2. How does this affect circular dependency logic that has mixed-level
resolutions? For example, package A could have "recommends" in place for
package B and "suggests" for package C while package B has "requires" for
package A and package C has "supplements" for package A.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20141115/6cb62863/attachment.html>