Package updating
seth vidal
skvidal at linux.duke.edu
Mon Dec 19 05:06:01 UTC 2005
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 03:33 +0000, Bill Crawford wrote:
> Not really ;) we were all hoping you would do it.
Boy, that's the type statement that really makes someone want to
continue to be an open source volunteer. Sheesh.
> But this sounds like the perfect answer to all the "yum wouldn't update
> at all because of dependency problem X" mails we see on the list.
> Getting as much updated as possible in those circumstances would be
> helpful, particularly for people who want to test (whether it be running
> rawhide by default, or trying it from -test1 onwards) -- which I realize
> isn't the case you want to optimize for, of course :)
not really. testers, frankly, should expect problems and be capable of
working around them.
> One point about breaking up transactions: it would allow e.g. a minimal
> install to be done first, thus solving a lot of problems for people who
> get halfway through an install and it breaks due to hardware issues, or
> network problems if doing a net install, or whatever. You'd pretty much
> guarantee that as long as the first (sub?)transaction completed, you'd
> have a bootable system, allowing the rest to be fixed up afterwards
not necessarily. If something is missing a non-library dep that it
requires to boot properly you could still be screwed.
For example: new kernel requires a new mkinitrd or a new SysVinit.
Someone doesn't notice the new requirement and fails to add the SysVinit
>= somever.
Then your system won't boot and you're still stuck. So this is
definitely not a save-all - it would just diminish the chance.
I'm mostly interested in breaking up the transaction for purposes of
lowering the memory footprint of large transaction sets.
but in all seriousness - if you want these features then you have to
work for them. My time is finite and my interest in features I don't use
is fleeting.
-sv
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list