On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 at 11:05 drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson >> <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 18:33 +0200, drago01 wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Am 07.04.2015 um 17:53 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: >> >> > > >> >> > > On 04/07/2015 05:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > 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 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > +1 >> >> > >> >> > that's unacceptable and leads in burry *real* problems resulting >> >> > in sonner >> >> > or later security updates are broken and nobody take snotice soon >> >> > enough >> >> >> >> The bug is elsewhere though ... i.e. that is even possible to push >> >> updates with broken deps. >> >> Rawhide is a different story but everything that goes through bodhi >> >> (stable releases and branched) should simply refuse pushes with >> >> broken >> >> deps. >> > >> > This is easier said than done. We don't have a perfect dependency >> > checker and it's not at all easy to write one. tflink and John Dulaney >> > have more details if you're interested, but yes, this is not a trivial >> > thing we can just wave a wand and make happen. >> >> We do have dep solvers otherwise no one would notice that a dep is >> broken ever. (like libsolv + hawkey). >> So what bodhi should do is to ask "has this package all dependencies >> satisfied with base + updates + other packages in this push" for every >> package in the push. >> If the answer is "no" for a package cancel the push; remove it; >> restart and only push the once that has satisfied deps. >> Report the failed once to the maintainers so that they can fix it. >> > > It is not so simple, you have to test all combinations for packages > requiring an updated package and all the packages there requires someting > provided by previous version of the package, with thousend of packages and > multiple packages providing the same stuff, it is an almost impossible task. Did you even read what I wrote? -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
