On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:10:34 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > In other words, some maintainer pushed a built with broken deps, > Fedora's automated dep checkers and rel-eng also missed these. As far as I know they only have a planned automated dep checker intended to be the be-all, end-all of dep checkers, analyzing everything down to the last detail, running instantly, and all those other goals that always prevent vaporware from becoming real. I always wished they'd just install a virtual machine with as many non-conflicting packages as possible, and run updates through a little extra stage, building the new repo, and running update on the virtual machine. If it works, no problem, the updates are consistent for 99.99% of all users who don't have some weird corner case packages installed. It seems like this level of checking would take at most a few days to implement, but since it isn't flawless, it is totally unacceptable, leaving things in the hopeless broken state they are in now while working on the impossibly perfect checker is a far better alternative than implementing something that would be easy and fix 99% of all problems like this. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
