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

Re: Questioning Pirut



On 2/20/06, Jeremy Katz <katzj redhat com> wrote:
> This is something which I'm a bit open to discussion on -- I think that
> definitely for the case of updates (pup), the deps are something that
> you mostly want to accept and not have to actively accept.

updates involving normal dep resolution maybe... but obsoletes which
are causing a removal as part of an update? New packages installed
which are needed by an update of an existing package? or updates due
to epoch inflation? Do you want that to happen without a review step? 
I personally consider these package update paths abnormal and consider
reviewing these actions part of due-diligence.

And beyond pup.. into the realm of pirut functionality where whole
groups of packages can be removed. You most certaintly want a
review/accept step. I don't care how well you well think you have
named a group and how consistently and intuitively you have filled it
with members, there will be some divergence in the userbase over
expectations as to what should be removed on group removal. And
removing groups of packages via pirut without a review/accept stage is
going to lead to confusion when functionality is removed that users
didn't expect to be removed via group level removal operations. I
would say any removal action needs to have a review/accept stage.

-jef"can't wait to test how pirut handles group removals when core
groups are extended by 3rd party repo group definitions which make the
filesystem member package a member of every defined group.
Correction...
I can't wait to users find my 3rd party repo that makes filesystem a
member of every defined Core group"spaleta


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