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

Re: rawhide report: 20060121 changes



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

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée


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