On Tue, 10 May 2005, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Knaddison wrote:
> > On 5/10/05, Lamar Owen <lowen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > My complaint isn't as much with the repository as it's with yum itself for
> > > blowing chunks and completely failing.
>
> The problem isn't yum ... it is the 304 status code from apache
It's more like how Yum handles the situation.
> > You may have better luck discussing this on the yum-devel list. I
> > know Seth reads this list, but not everyone working on yum does and I
> > also know that Seth has been busy recently and may not ready every
> > single post to CentOS.
> >
> > In fact, there is a discussion on this topic already:
> >
> > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum-devel/2005-May/thread.html#1140
> >
> > Seth has responded with some reasons why simply noting that a repo is
> > down and moving on isn't a good idea. I'm not familiar enough to say
> > whether or not his reasoning makes sense, but I generally do respect
> > his opinion.
>
> I agree with Seth on this one ... if one repo doesn't work, you could
> get software installed from a repo where you don't expect it to come
> from. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to require manual
> intervention if something is broken.
Well, if you expect software to come from a designated repository (or not
from certain other repositories). You should pin that software altogether
to a repository.
Bailing out on every single error like this is a real problem. Not only in
this case, but there are many other cases where Yum bails out where it
doesn't have to.
BTW why not leave it up to the user to decide what to do, you're asking
for a confirmation anyway, so let him decide without breaking the user's
normal execution path.
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
