On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 19:45 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > 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. What do you think of a security update that doesn't update because there's a bug in an unrelated package? How "potentially serious" a problem would that be? The job of a metapackager is making updating easier, not harder just as hard as if it wasn't there. > That's like saying: My kernel shouldn't scream at me about hard drive > failures, it should quietly let them happen. I fail to see a resemblance. I'm saying to not touch with the problematic packages but try to keep on with the rest, if possible. There would be a resemblance if I was saying to install even if it screamed of a problem... > if there is a potential conflict that can't really be resolved, prompt > the user. Yum doesn't prompt. Barfs. You could be right if it did, but _it_doesn't_. You can handle it. Fine. I can handle it. Fine. But is it satisfying the purpose? > > 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. In a very highlevel way, I already did, wouldn't you say so? You simple mark where you've been so far (and where you have had problems), and check for those marks at each package. A mutual obsolete is just another kind of loop. There's no need to deny it from the start like you seem to be doing. 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
