On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 17:51 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > it's about the assumption... > > > > if a yum clean metadata fixes the issue, then it is not an issue that is > > problematic for everyone but only those whose metadata contains a > > package list of updates that won't work...it's a local problem. > > > The fact that multiple people had the problem, and several people had it on > multiple machines, seems to make it a 'common problem,' and since it was caused > by a dependency error in the repositories which certainly was not local. > > > I can assure you that neither I nor most have had to 'downgrade' in > > order to upgrade. > > > Well that clears it up, if you don't have the problem it doesn't matter how many > other people have it, it's unimportant. The rest of us don't count, and > shouldn't clutter the list with solutions to any problem you don't personally > have, and if we don't load the same metadata you do that's our fault. ---- if I counted correctly, there were 3 people who complained of issues with ibus updates which as we knew had a broken dependency for a few days. While that may be multiple people, it doesn't exactly qualify as an Arlo movement. I searched but didn't see any reports on bugzilla for your issue so it can only be considered anecdotal since no one apparently was bothered enough to file a report. Having a problem with yum metadata is not peculiar to any specific package. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
