----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Hughes" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 12:11:54 PM > Subject: Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum > > On 09/04/15 11:10, Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 09/04/15 10:30, Radek Holy wrote: > > > >>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 08:22:53 -0400, > >>> Radek Holy <rholy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> AFAIK, YUM's --skip-broken does two things: > >>>> 1) it selects another version of the requested package if the most > >>>> suitable > >>>> cannot be installed > >>>> 2) it skips the requested package if none of its versions can be > >>>> installed > >>>> > >>>> (2) was intentionally not supported in DNF so far but we have been > >>>> repeatedly receiving bug reports complaining that this "feature" is > >>>> missing. We have finally received a use case for it and thus we are > >>>> considering an implementation as a plugin. > >>> > >>> Doesn't 2 apply if no package list is given for dnf update? > >>> > >> > >> Hm, well, in case of upgrade some version of the given package is > >> already installed so literally no (because the already installed > >> version can be installed :-) ). But let's say that we both are correct > >> because upgrade is kind of special in this case. We can think about > >> changing the upgrade command to be consistent with the install command > >> if there is a demand to do that but so far I'm fine with the current > >> situation. I think that in case of upgrade, it's more common to ask to > >> upgrade as much as you can while in case of install, users/scripts > >> prefer to install everything or fail otherwise. Moreover I think that > >> the change could annoy a lot of users. > > > > Sounds reasonable, but include distro-sync in the upgrade case please... > > > > That was one of the issues I ran into the other day, where I did > > something like "dnf distro-sync b*" and if failed because one of the > > installed packages which matched the wildcard didn't exist in any repo. > > Hmm. Think I misread a bit what you were talking about, but my request > still stands ;-) Hm, I think that it depends on the use case. AFAIK, distro-sync is mostly used to upgrade Fedora (an unsupported approach AFAIK) and to replace some testing/3rd-party versions of package with the "official" ones. (BTW, I'd appreciate if anyone will share their use case) While in the first case, I think that the upgrade's behaviour is preferred, in the other case, the install's behaviour is better IMO. (Which dangerously indicates that the --skip-broken switch is a good solution :( ) Anyway, file an RFE (if it isn't filed already) please. We can track/discuss it there. Thank you in advance -- Radek Holý Associate Software Engineer Software Management Team Red Hat Czech -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
