> 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. it's not the job of the metapackagers to let potentially serious problems go unseen. That's ridiculous. That's like saying: My kernel shouldn't scream at me about hard drive failures, it should quietly let them happen. if there is a potential conflict that can't really be resolved, prompt the user. > 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?). okay then define the procedure. Set up the standard for handling mutual obsoleting packages and updates. you write up the process for what has to occur and get EVERYONE to agree on it and I'll write the code. -sv
