On 8.4.2015 17:36, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 04/08/2015 08:39 AM, Jan Zelený wrote: >> On 8. 4. 2015 at 10:26:51, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> Am 08.04.2015 um 08:41 schrieb Jan Zelený: >>> >>>> 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. >> > Perhaps dnf should keep track whether it had to 'skip-broken' , and report > packages that were skipped during the update? I very much agree with this. As a user, I expect that 'dnf upgrade' will give me latest packages and that DNF will tell me the fact that newer packages are available but not installable. Maybe it could have a form of plugin, at least for the beginning? > I agree with Harald that invoking it quietly is the wrong thing to do. I have > an extensive set of repositories (Fedora, Fusion, local, src/debug) and I had > to "yum --skip-broken" disturbingly often. -- Petr Spacek @ Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
