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

Re: Breaking deps deliberately



On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, drago01 <drago01 gmail com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin kofler chello at> wrote:
>> Colin Walters wrote:
>>> Would it be easier to do more extensive checks only for say security
>>> updates?  Maybe we could consider splitting fedora-updates into two
>>> repos; fedora-updates-security and fedora-updates-all?
>>
>> That doesn't really work, because security updates in Fedora are usually
>> not "security only" updates, but also have other changes, depend on
>> non-security updates, both obsolete and get obsoleted by non-security
>> updates etc. Having 2 separate updates repos would mean maintaining 2
>> separate branches of packages like Adam Williamson is describing, one with
>> security updates only and one with the rest. That doubles the maintainer
>> workload and doesn't help the case of security updates for the packages
>> from "all" (because the packages in "security" would have only the security
>> fix and not the changes previously done in "all").
>
> + it wont solve anything anway .. if the a dep is broken yum will
> abort the whole transaction not only for the repo with the broken
> deps.

Good point, though this one is solvable client-side.  In the current
desktop experience you choose whether to install just security or
everything every time.  We could make that setting default to
persistent, so that people who choose to do only security will have
their yum configuration changed to disable updates-all.


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