-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 02:31:37PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 03:13:41 +0800, > P J P <pj.pandit@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > No, it does not. If yum is protecting users from un-installing a package which could render the whole system unusable or unresponsive, what remains is not-so important packages, which pull in 100 other _unrelated_ packages to the list of packages to be removed. And invariably user is left with no choice but to type - 'N'; unable to remove a package. > > They aren't unrelated. I believe he is assuming that xchat has a direct relationship with bluez which, I'm guessing here as I haven't checked, probably isn't the case. Because bluez affects something that xchat depends on xchat is getting thrown into the pile of things that will break without bluez. Dependencies aren't always 1:1... - -- Eric - -------------------------------------------------- Eric "Sparks" Christensen Fedora Project sparks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - sparks@xxxxxxxxxx 097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1 - -------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJSXAEzAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYvuYAL+wa2uxwCPazpIpFKjfO/WGIu NmsWUw++BcdA5wBskvhS1vdC9tsI6Te5YpSkATcTk+iEoqvfZ0y84wFNJeL6i0N7 JHGgeU317kCJGjlRtGMvVlk8TrrUa4ICGrfu5At4CRCZSqr9cGgLp7eJTx7fMP+G k5nqDXsPeWFXkLfyQJejgcsdoP3jxZA883VWZDsUWJ3Bow0Oj0n979pCJwKd3ZBE N66ibYmCX97r1W6MB+g8bnORhvNo4UlhU0CNoViV0t7ffZpX9ZpRYdu+uYgwK1Jd aCSk8MQCYX5RHo5yYFcd1NiQTXxiZINwQqTV2Y1RBrFOE09gfPhrVp2wHdDqihJq VteGiDk+nHbOaiHYq0LG1d+qK7EZEa4XMf8EpZJsEs8lk921+zcBmT6JxtdxK9IX siBUf8MQV+5CkBArjtTumActdYmVJzt8Ao1NIaBuL7oDK7XsX9MaUhTebPcIzHcl 3kyMwNFrSCkgGYTAxapjbgrf5RWN8HqhoiR0Rl9LFA== =yRrn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
