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

Re: RFC: best way to fix the regular yum dependency problems with add-on packages from 3rd party repositories



On 04.08.2008 17:39, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 09:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I suppose a lot of users won't look that close and some GUIs will likely hide such a output. So I don't like that idea to much, as it afaik could block important updates of certain packages for months or years if the user has a local packages (an orphan or a manually installed RPM from non-Fedora repos) installed that is the culprit for the dependency problem.

What IMHO might work is a "skip broken" plugin that for example ignores broken deps for a certain timeframe (say 48 oder 72 hours after the problems was hit for the first time) and boils out after that in case the broken dep still isn't fixed.
> [...]
2. doing it via date is very odd. If only b/c the only date we could use
if the file timestamp of the pkg and packages will sometimes sit in a
space before being pushed to a repo officially. So it will be something
of a crapshoot what it says is really broken or not.

That why I didn't suggest to use the build date and mentioned to use "48 or 72 hours after the problems was hit for the first time". That of cause would need to be managed on the client (e.g. for each broken dep write down somewhere when the problem showed up; if the same problem shows up with the same packages 72 hours later then boil out to make sure the user gets aware of the issue).

But yes, agreed, using the date is a bit odd, but I'd say it could solve the "Skip broken for weeks prevented that I didn't get the crucial update" problem. Or is there a better way around that?

Cu
knurd


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