On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Jesse Keating
<jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2009, at 13:53, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script
>
> altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it
>
> breaks?
>
> I thought the +1's were for putting in some circuit breakers, so
>
> that when (not if) it breaks again, it won't spam the entire package
>
> Proposed circuit breaker: if more than 5% of packages supposedly have broken
> dependencies.
>
>
> Sounds reasonable. Accepting patches if you want this done in the new
> future.
$ repoclosure -r updates | grep '^ ' | sort | uniq -c | sort -gr | head
167 rtld(GNU_HASH)
130 /sbin/ldconfig
127 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
127 libc.so.6()(64bit)
101 /bin/sh
on the repo... But this is not the new rawhide (it's updates on its
own) repo of
course. I'm not sure where that actually is at the moment?
Will look at how the rawhide report is created. The results belong in there.
> --
> Jes
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
--
Steve Traylen
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
