| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:37:28PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten?? wrote: |
| 2 |
> "Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@g.o> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Having a complete |
| 5 |
> > deptree and having a small system package set should be independent |
| 6 |
> > goals, maybe your proposal should focus on making possible to have a |
| 7 |
> > deptree as complete as possible independently of what packages are on |
| 8 |
> > system set. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> QA team already rejected such a proposal. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Don't suppose you have a url for their reasoning? Among other things, |
| 13 |
system set can vary, thus resulting in horked dependencies. |
| 14 |
Additionally, a more accurate dep details is useful for |
| 15 |
parallelization hints- breaking the reliance on system set as much as |
| 16 |
possible, and treating it more like a users world set is something |
| 17 |
I've wanted for a long while. |
| 18 |
~brian |
Archives