Jesse Keating wrote : > On Thursday 14 June 2007 10:43:52 Matthias Saou wrote: > > Well, ultimately it would be best to prevent any kind of breakage, but > > in the particular case of the updated kernel being pushed without the > > newer mkinitrd it requires, the check could be much simpler : It > > wouldn't check the consistency of the entire repo, nor even if the > > updates pushed would break existing stuff... it would just check if > > it's not pushing something broken, i.e. check if all requirements of the > > packages being pushed are met. > > > > Not ideal, but maybe quite easy and yet very useful? > > But what if the requirements are being met by other things that are set to be > pushed? And what if you asked to push something and the requirements were > met at that time, but then somebody came along and say unpushed a broken > package like mkinitrd, so that the kernel which once WAS satisfied is no > longer satisfied? You can't rely upon things at the request for push time, > it has to be at the actual 'process this set of requests' time, and it has to > take the entire request set into account. Then it's what Michael said : Run repoclosure. Reliable, but very slow. Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) - Linux kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7 Load : 0.02 0.08 0.08 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
