Some fedora devel inconsistencies...

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeu 13/11/2003 à 22:56, Panu Matilainen a écrit :
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 23:28, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le jeu 13/11/2003 à 21:46, seth vidal a écrit :

> > > You're right - if you specify 'yum update' and something fails, it won't
> > > run the update. That's behavior that, to me, protects the user from
> > > stupid stupid shite.
> > I don't expect yum to do miracles and update when dependencies are not
> > satisfied. Blocking on unrelated packages dep errors OTOH is a bit
> > excessive IMHO.
> 
> OTOH apt occasionally gets pretty wild ideas how to "fix" something when
> all dependencies aren't met: someone on freshrpms list just complained
> about apt wanting to remove 330 packages from his system after
> (obviously partial) upgrade from RHL 7.3 to 9 - that's not particularly
> productive behavior either :)

In this case I'd have been satisfied with yum just ignoring the packages
it couldn't place in its dependency graph:). Not a single package
removal needed;)

(and yes apt can get wild - but if I understand well, yum will block
every single time whereas I know from experience apt is right most of
the times)

Cheers,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20031113/1e7e95a3/attachment.sig>