update to F11 with yum

[Alan Evans]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Alan Evans wrote:
> It's broken because a package not being required by anything else doesn't
> mean it isn't needed. For example, it could be an application which is
> being removed because you just removed a plugin for it or a second
> application whcih requires that first application for something. And in
> this case, it's either a situation like that (where basesystem isn't
> required by anything after removing glibc.i686, but should still not be
> removed) or a plain bug in the plugin (where it removes something which is
> still required by other packages).

I've been using this plugin for a long time and this is the first time
it has threatened to remove basesystem. So I'd like to understand what
triggered it this time. So much easier to make effective bug reports
if one understands the problem.

> It shall also be noted that the plugin breaks PackageKit in F11 and
> therefore the PackageKit update which is coming to F11 soon (as soon as we
> sort out KPackageKit) blacklists it (which means the plugin won't have any
> effect in PackageKit).

A bug in the remove-with-leaves plugin that erroneously tags packages
for removal causes a segmentation fault in PackageKit? Perhaps, but
I'm unconvinced. (And I realize that it is not your job to convince
me...)

Anyway, the "solution" (bug 503989) is, in my opinion, spectacularly
backwards. PackageKit is broken when using the remove-with-leaves
plugin, so disallow using that plugin with PackageKit. This assures
that the bug will never get fixed. If the plugin is buggy and somehow
gets fixed then PackageKit still won't use it, so nobody will know.
If, on the other hand, PackageKit is buggy then it certainly won't get
fixed because the symptom will never be seen now that the trigger is
removed.

In any case, we might as well just remove the plugin completely from
Fedora and call it a day. If another packages has a problem and the
plugin is involved then the plugin is blacklisted. If a user has a
problem and the plugin is involved then the user is instructed to
remove the plugin. At that point, shouldn't we ask why we are shipping
the plugin at all?