I don't agree with a hard ban on it. All that will do is make it so those will get upgraded to Requires instead, and that's worse. The packager intent may actually be that it must be installed unless you specifically block it because it's only being weakened to deal with an edge-case (minimization, for example).

All that will do is make it so those will get upgraded to Requires instead, and that's worse. The packager intent may actually be that it must be installed unless you specifically block it because it's only being weakened to deal with an edge-case (minimization, for example).

I don't understand this at all. What do you mean? Why would you change:

Recommends: %{name}-foo = %{version}-%{release}

To:

Requires: %{name}-foo = %{version}-%{release}

Instead of:

Recommends: %{name}-foo

?

@churchyard Because the intent is that it should be installed and only if you absolutely are filtering it out you should not get it. It's basically a compromise between standard weak install and standard requires.

I'll amend the rule to:

• mention this is a dnf-specific behavior
• explain how to avoid a different version of the subpackage being recommended this way by accident (aka "but if the package is installed I need it to be the same version" problem (which BTW is not solved by using fully versioned Recommends))

The DNF change it's currently being discussed and might be disabled, so I haven't worked on this yet.

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/AVFZ725A56QL5GCIZZFCWUIPHJRUPBSR/

I was told that the DNF change no longer does that. So I'll close this and we can revisit this if ever needed.