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

Re: yum pulling in 386 packages



On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 17:19 +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:30:05 +0100
> > David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org> wrote:
> > 
> >> That strategy is, quite simply, wrong.
> > 
> > Then work to fix the strategy, don't shoot the tools for following the
> > requested script.  Dropping snide comments about them doesn't make
> > anybody any more eager to listen to you.
> 
> The point is that in fact yum is the problem (not the only one). Yum - as an 
> updating tool - should honor the user's previously made decisions as much as 
> possible. To be able to do that on a multilib system yum needs to take arch 
> into account for more or less every decision (especially the arch of the 
> already installed packages). As yum didn't do that in the past introducing 
> multilib would have required to rewrite all package selection code within 
> yum (and some other parts of the tool chain). Instead people came up with 
> the "install everything" policy with the hope this would hide most problems 
> of the non multilib aware tools. As we all known this only works for the 
> simplest cases - not to mention all the other drawbacks that come up on this 
> list every week (as in this thread).

Umm, you have it backward. When I was originally writing in the multilib
support I asked how it should be done and was told, at the time, by
Jeremy that it should install both of them b/c that's what users would
want/expect. At least, that's what I vaguely recall. This has been about
3 years, now.



> 
> So it is not about changing the "default policy" but about having a sane 
> behavior in our tools that do not depend on any policy but just work [1].

Wrong. It's about the policy.


-sv



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