> look at the hash marking and percentages reported when you=20 > run rpm -Uvh > foo.rpm bar.rpm baz.rpm >=20 > it marks each of them as 33% of the total. >=20 > so they really are a SET of things they are NOT individually=20 > dealt with. >=20 > so that is where I am right now - so my question is - should pre-rpm > transaction failures be fatal or just warnings. I guess it depends on what would happen if you then passed the transaction to rpm. If your "pre-rpm transaction" fails, and you then pass it to rpm, will that fail too? If so, there's no point in doing it. Maybe we need a "--use-multiple-rpm-transactions" flag? Then internally use multiple rpm transactions instead of a single one. But if we do that, and there's nothing to be gained over doing: yum update pkg1 yum update pkg2 then I'd suggest just doing nothing. (I'm not saying there is nothing to be gained, I'm hypothicating.) There's no sense having yum do the looping internally unless some speed gain can be realized. I started this thread because I thought yum could do a better job than me in looping, perhaps by computing dependencies only in one pass, instead of multiple ones. If that's not the case, then lets leave it like it is. > I'm inclined to keep that as the default behavior but give=20 > the user the > ability to tone down the fatality a bit. I definitely think you should not change the default behavior. > However, I will not consider requests to implement the equiv=20 > of --force > --no-deps as eventually slippery-slope states of "toning down the > fatality" I agree completely. That's the one thing that got me hooked on yum in the first place! Eric
