On 8. 4. 2015 at 10:26:51, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 08.04.2015 um 08:41 schrieb Jan Zelený: > > On 7. 4. 2015 at 17:53:42, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> On 04/07/2015 05:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:38:57 -0500 > >>> > >>> Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:22:25 -0300, > >>>> > >>>> Paulo César Pereira de Andrade > >>>> > >>>> <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> I had also switched back to yum in rawhide due to --skip-broken, > >>>>> > >>>>> and > >>>>> in a few updates not even needing it (I would first see what is > >>>>> broken, and if not something "vital", use --skip-broken), while dnf > >>>>> would just fail with cryptic messages. I can keep up if kde or gnome > >>>>> is broken, or some other stuff that does not prevent boot and a > >>>>> functional system. > >>>> > >>>> dnf really does need --skip-broken like support if it is to replace > >>>> yum. yum can be a lot faster than the needed work around to get dnf > >>>> to work equivalently. I am considering going back to yum in rawhide > >>>> rather than continuig to test dnf in rawhide because of this issue. > >>> > >>> dnf's default behavior is like yum with --skip-broken already. > >> > >> WHAT? > >> > >> --skip-broken is a band-aid to work around packaging mistakes and bugs > >> and NOT be the default. > >> > >> IMO, this kind of behavior is not helpful and therefore should be > >> reverted. > > > > This behavior is actually helpful, as it doesn't bother users with a bunch > > of broken deps messages they usually don't fully understand (check out > > how many of these bugs were filed against yum over the years). > > well, check out how many bugs where filed for the correct component > > that default don't solve any problem, it's just put the head in the sand > and burry it > > > Putting the opinion of myself and the dnf team aside, I'd like to point > > out > > that the information you want is still available - dnf check-update will > > show you all the updates, even those that have broken deps. Running this > > command right after dnf upgrade will list you those that could not be > > installed > the world don't work that way > > *nobody* even not myself would call "dnf check-update" after "dnf > upgrade" installed updates and did not complain about anything You are right, people use it the other way - we have had reports stating that dnf check-update shows packages that dnf upgrade doesn't select. In other words, the information about broken updates is still available to the user. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
