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

Re: Specifying How Yum Downloads Updates



On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 22:28 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Bob Gustafson wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 13:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 21:24 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> >>
> >>>> the download by pkg size behavior was changed precisely b/c of how many
> >>>> raving complaints we got about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems like we can't win.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And the first person to say "well then make it an option" gets told to
> >>>> stop talking until they're maintaining the code.
> >>> ----
> >>> those are the people who infuriate you by eating the icing from the
> >>> middle of the Oreo's first.
> >>>
> >>> I'm clearly just eat the cookie kind of person.
> >>
> >> I like the download-by-package-size behaviour, but I ALSO eat the icing
> >> first.
> >>
> >> I reject your orthodoxy, tyrant!
> >> --
> >
> > When it comes to yum, there is only one tyrant..
> 
> eyeroll.
> 
> yes. I'm a horrible tyrant b/c I generally think that the only line of 
> code that is bug free is the line of code that WAS NEVER WRITTEN.
> 
> I also think that LESS CODE == BETTER.
> 
> I do not think features are always better and I frequently think that 
> having a knob for everything doesn't help anyone, least of all the 
> maintainers of the code.
> 
> 
> -sv
> 

Ahh, but with yum, you must be very careful when deleting/removing a
component, because of all the dependencies that get ripped out too.

This is because you did not include a usage count for each component.

Some folks would consider that a serious omission, (debian folks),
rather than LESS == BETTER.


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