On 10. 4. 2015 at 08:53:46, Petr Spacek wrote: > 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? Again, dnf check-update already does that. While I understand the request to make it more convenient, I can't promise you that we will do that. Please try to understand, we try to keep dnf as structurally clean as possible and duplicating functionality does not help that. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
