[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rawhide report: 20060121 changes



Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

Le lundi 23 janvier 2006 à 10:23 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 19:08 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
I strongly believe that most users would prefer the smart behavior, or at
least the option of being asked.  Specifically, if some dependencies have
problems, offer to go ahead with other packages that don't have problems.
Working around broken deps is not a smart thing to automate.  While
there are hard deps, there maybe some soft deps that are just unknown.
When testing, tests are performed with ALL the updates in place, not a
smattering of them

This is all well and dandy for traditional base + updates systems, it's
an assumption that's dead wrong for rolling releases like rawhide.

This thread as shown nothing @rh checks rawhide iterations are
self-consistent before pushing them. So there are no "good" distro
states, only a string of "gray" system states, and it's totally wrong of
yum to expect a "good" system state will appear some time in the future.

Hell, in theory it would be possible for rawhide to never be in a state
yum likes from FCx to FCx+1T1
Just use a script like the one in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/yum or write a yum plugin. Nobody is stopping a yum plugin from being written for specific use in rawhide. If it requires more that a yum plugin hash out the details in yum-devel list with the relevant developers.


--
Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]