On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 13:14 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 16:32 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 08:48 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > > On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 17:07 +0900, Naoki wrote: > > > > I missed the thread, what happened to 'upgrade' ? > > > > > > yum --obsoletes update > > > > I honestly fail to understand why this isn't the default. > > osboletes can be what you set if you want. > > just set obsoletes=1 in the [main] section of your yum.conf Oh, I've already done that. I just think it should be the default. > however obsoletes should not be the default b/c of circular obsoletes. > ie: > foo obsoletes bar > baz osboletes foo > bar obsoletes baz > > and if you don't think that happens, look around, it definitely does. Well, I thought there was a process for package submission, review and what not. Of course accidents happen. But this is no excuse, or is a "meta packager" like yum not better than plain rpm in itself? As far as I can see, I have to solve about as many problems as I did without a metapackager (--obsoletes, --exclude=..., etc...). The job of a meta packager is making things easier. My praise was precisely that yum has had a giant step towards this goal, but there are definitely corners to round. Anyway, loops are not that hard to find, just mark where you've been previously (prolog 101) and handle apropriately (ie, until repo fixes it, I can't do anything that touches foo, bar or baz, may I proceed with the rest?). Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
