On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 17:30 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 12.12.2008 10:55, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 07:06 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> On 11.12.2008 19:28, Richard Hughes wrote: > >>> Yes, we can easily enable the testing repos with a small button and a > >>> more info link. The real question is, will this clutter the UI and > >>> confuse new users? > >> Another good question (related to the "will this confuse new users" > >> part): Will you enable the updates-testing repos from 3rd party repos in > >> the same step automatically? > > > > Yes. > > Great! > > > If the user has fedora and rpmfusion enabled, but livna disabled, > > Just to me sure: I assume you meant both rpmfusion repos (free and > nonfree) when you wrote "rpmfusion"? Whichever you have enabled. It's just a repo ID to PK. > > it'll do in the first pass: > > > > updates from all configured and enabled sources > > > > and on the second pass: > > > > disable fedora and rpmfusion > > Disable? Why disable any repos? What is a package from one of the > testing repos introduces a new dep that is only solved by a package in > fedora (stock repos) or fedora-updates? Else you report some updates twice. > > enable fedora-testing and rpmfusion-testing > > updates from all configured and enabled sources > > enable fedora and rpmfusion > > disable fedora-testing and rpmfusion-testing > > > > If you've got livna installed then it shouldn't touch the repo. > > The new livna repo (that users get that install the current release > package from the rlo front page) afaics has no testing area anymore, so > it afaics should not matter at all and not get touched (like you said) Right. > > The > > tricky bit is the heuristic that matches up rpmfusion-testing to > > rpmfusion. > > Maybe all that is needed it to enable all "*-testing" repos. Then it > would work even for other repos as well. But maybe that's to dangerous. I think some people might get upset by that. > >> But well, likely it doesn't matter to much anyway, as yum is still > >> pretty broken in such situations anyway, as mirror lags will confuse it: > >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-August/msg00041.html > > We can't do much about mirror lags, but we do switch on --skip-broken by > > default which sort of mitigates things. > > I'm not really sure of "skip-broken" in its current form really is the > best way to solve it, but maybe it's "good enough". Another subthread in > this discussion hopefully gets to a result. Right. Richard. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
