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

Re: Dependency Champion

fedora-list-request redhat com wrote:
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:01:41 -0430
From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" <pocallaghan gmail com>
Subject: Re: fedora-list Digest, Vol 57, Issue 47 Dependency Champion
To: fedora-list redhat com
Message-ID: <1226075501 3141 3 camel bree homelinux com>
Content-Type: text/plain

On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 16:48 +0100, DB wrote:
> Having been bitten several times by Yum's ideas of "what depends on
> what", I agree with Henk.  If I have 2 (as far as I can see &
> understand) independent, stand-aloneable programs eg Cups & Firefox,
> it ought to be possible for me to remove either without automatically
> taking out the other - no, I've never even thought of the work that
> must go into something like that!!!!
As Michael pointed out, this has absolutely nothing to do with Yum. The packages were specified with certain dependencies and Yum is simply following the spec. I'm sure you're not suggesting that Yum should examine the packages and determine if X *really* depends on Y ... BTW, if possible don't use Yahoo to reply. Its idea of message threading (not to mention quoting) seems to be completely broken. poc

OK... if Yum is a "dumb" servant, then the definers of dependencies maybe should look into how things are listed - IM*V*HO. Surely something **optional* *that I install after the initial set-up cannot become a dependency of something which is/was supposed to work without the (unrelated) optional bit???? Or as Yumex so kindly lists all wot it's going to kill off, could there not be a way of deselecting those elements that are "obviously" wrong??????

(Thanks for the hint on the reply -- I use Thunderbird as my mail manager & didn't do a very good job on cutting out the bits of the Digest I didn't want to quote - mea maxima culpa, not Yahoo's fault this time!)



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