On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:05:29 +0000, MV (Marko) wrote: > On Thursday 16 February 2012 12:17:14 Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:22:05 +0000, MV (Marko) wrote: > > > Even better, the virtual machine can do a "yum update --skip-broken", > > > and then pick up yum's report on what was updated and what was skipped. > > > > --skip-broken is not safe yet, is it? At least on x86_64, broken deps > > have caused the depsolver to pull in i686 packages to satisfy dependencies. > > I didn't know this can happen. It's the primary reason why packagers enhance explicit dependencies to be arch-specific, following the corresponding packaging guideline (from February 2011) to use the %_isa macro. > Can you provide some additional info (a link to > a bugzilla or something)? There have been multiple ones, IIRC. A brief look at http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/yum reveals: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/728147 With a different update set than in that ticket, you can end up with several dozens of i686 packages getting installed because of an explicit non-arch-specific dependency somewhere. An update takes something away, which is needed, and the depsolver notices that an [old] i686 package can be used to satisfy the dependency instead. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
