[repo-coord] repo agnostic package resolvers (was: Latest apt broken?)

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net
Wed Jan 19 17:13:26 CET 2005


On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 04:32:02PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:06:18AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Andre Costa wrote:
> > > > E: could not open package priority file /etc/apt/rpmpriorities

> > > I know Axel removed most config-files necessary to run Apt from the apt 
> > > package [...]

> > No, that's certainly not ATrpms' apt. The apt in ATrpms does have the
> > config files broken out to allow for any repo to supply its own, but
> > of course it has file dependencies on the config files, so this
> > situation is not possible unless you force the package to be installed
> > with rpm --nodeps.
> 
> Sorry Axel, I jumped to conclusion when I saw rpmpriorities missing and 
> your SPEC file did not have it. I did not see the dependencies to 
> %{_sysconfdir}/apt/... as I was looking for atrpms-package-config. 
> Possibly the late night hour was partly to blame.

No problem. There is indeed no direct reference to
atrpms-package-config or medley-package-config, only the file
dependencies on a package providing these. So anyone can craft a
my-repo-package-config and use this instead.

> > A nice thing would be to agree on common infrastructure packages,
> > and breaking out the config files makes them vendor/repo neutral,
> > so I hope this does have a chance to be accepted in the long run
> > (not that we will be living to see it, but you have to plane in
> > big timescales ;)
> 
> Yes, I agree, but how would that work for
> /etc/apt/{apt.conf,preferences,rpmpriorities} ? The
> atrpms-package-config includes this. If I do the same, both will
> conflict again.

That's not a problem, I have three packages of this kind in ATrpms
(one is Fedora Core alone, one is Fedora Core with ATrpms, and one is
Fedora Core with everything but fedora.us, the so called "medley of
repos").

The only cumbersome thing is that these packages need to Conflict:
each other at the package level, otherwise they do so at file level
which is too late for apt to intervene. Works well if there are a
handfull of them but does not scale well. Perhaps smart deals better
with file conflicts (e.g. auto-promotes them to Conflicts:) and
behaves better, but I haven't tested.

It's not a perfect solution, but having the config out of the packages
is already a good step forward.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/attachments/20050119/020af893/attachment.bin


More information about the repo-coord mailing list