Strange package dependency problem

[William Hooper]

Let me expand on this so it doesn't sound so harsh...

William Hooper said:
>> Are you complaining about people complaining?  Maybe they are
>> complaining because yum and up2date are not working?
>
> up2date and yum are working just fine.

The package tree is broken.  Since this is development, this is not
unexpected.

>> Why don't
>> either of those programs just skip the packages that are having
>> problems and continue on?
>
> Because that isn't what they are designed to do.

I want to know where there are problems so I can find out if they are on
my side or if the tree is broken.

> [snip]
>
>> The package management system is not working when it holds up
>> multiple packages in the queue that don't have dependency
>> problems for one or two that do.
>
> The package management system is continuing to provide you with a
> consistent system and not breaking your existing packages.
>
>> If that is the way the package
>> management system is designed then maybe it should go back to
>> the drawing board.
>
> Let us know when you have code to test.

The time spend coding these features for a condition that shouldn't happen
in Real Life(TM) doesn't make sense.  It makes more sense to put that time
into FC2 Test2 (which by definition will be a non-broken tree).  And no, a
Test1 release is not Real Life(TM).

I'm sure that if you came up with some good quality patches that Seth
would look at them, but from where I'm sitting it is a waste of precious
developer time.


-- 
William Hooper