On 08/05/2013 03:58 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Again I would caution you against just blindly changing defaults to be
incompatible with yum ... even if the yum defaults are bad, every
incompatibility incurs a cost for all users (and it will exist as long
as yum and dnf are being used ... so like 10 years from now). At worst
speak with Zdenek about changing yum's defaults in future Fedora
versions, although even that's still going to be a problem for most
users.
In this case there's a reason skip_if_unavailable defaults to off, with
it on by default most of the package managers output is vastly more
suspect due to having no assurance about which repos. were actually used
to do the operation. And this is 100 worse for any code that does things
like "repo. X can't have packages that exist in repo. Y"
Also a lot of errors become "silent" errors (so things are slow and
don't work well instead of explicitly saying: foo repo. is broken).
Indeed are the dropbox repos. likely to be broken, or would someone fix
them if they knew? Should users have them disabled by default and only
use --enablerepo occasionally? Should they not be implemented as a
direct repo. at all?
Hello James,
I responded to your comments in the bugzila:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867389
Regarding Dropbox, it is broken for at least a month after each Fedora release, regularly. For F19 they added their repository just very recently. You can't force them to fix it. And even if you do, there will be always other repos which will have the same problem.
In my bug report I speak for users who don't know that --enablerepo/--disablerepo exists.
Perhaps the error message for unavailable repo could be used to educate
users about --enablerepo/--disablerepo and the skip_if_unavailable setting.
- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
