[Bug 507292] [RFE] Allow wildcards/regexps in rpm deps

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507292





--- Comment #5 from Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com>  2009-06-22 17:41:55 EDT ---
I'm well aware of the attributes of modern font families, having
studied fonts privately as a very complex data set to automate
dependency generation and classification for packaging usages.

But this is about packaging dependencies, not font attributes. There's
literally no compelling
usage case to map every detail of font attributes into rpm dependencies.

Can you do that? Sure you can. But its not gonna work for many reasons,
not the least of which you've already reported *repeatedly* is that packagers
are not using the font attribute dependency framework you have devised.

And -- if the font dependency framework needs RE pattern matching
implemented into RPM dependencies -- well, skate on bro!

I've suggested the following as likelier to "work":

1) order your font attributes in a single string L -> R by "importance".
Consider
"importance" as that which is most likely to be used by packagers or
easiest to automate. Yes, this will not be perfect, but some means to track
fonts in packaging is better than no means to track font dependencies in
packaing.

2) If you've chosen the L->R "importance" ordering carefully enough, then a
trailing
'*' wiild card (which is entirely feasible afaik, unlike full blown RE pattern
matching,
within existing EVR comparisons) will allow a single axis of comparison that
will map from less specific to more specific. All depends on getting the L->R
ordering
correct. If you miss that, I suspect that font dependencies will be DOA. JMHO,
YMMV,
everyone's does.

Have fun!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.