Closed mvo5 closed 1 week ago
Does it make sense to return these in the list of package specs? We wouldn't normally get that information from the depsolver as the packages are excluded so I feel like a list of package names is enough here?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying but if we just add the excluded package names as "normal" packages to the resolver we would not catch differences like "images" includes "pkg1" but "otk" excludes "pkg1". In both cases it would appear in the package list so I think we need some prefix/marker/thing that ensures they are different. Plus this is very explicit. But open for ideas of course.
Does it make sense to return these in the list of package specs? We wouldn't normally get that information from the depsolver as the packages are excluded so I feel like a list of package names is enough here?
If I understand your question correctly, the current patch should include this. Meaning, the list of package specs (the rpmmd
part of a manifest with metadata) should include all excluded packages as well now.
This commit adds excluded packages to the generated manifest when the
gen-manifests
command is run in themockDepsolve()
mode.This allows us to compare the generated otk and images manifests with more confidence.