On 10. 4. 2015 at 15:29:02, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 04/08/2015 08:41 AM, Jan Zelený wrote: > > 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). > > I vehemently disagree: Users having been seeing the symptoms of bugs. > Now you are lying and cheating, pretending their systems would be OK in > situations their systems are broken (and potentially vulnerable). > > I can not see anything helpful in this behaviour and am not impressed. Their systems are not broken (dnf does not install the broken packages), the repos are broken. I still maintain my opinion that users should not fix problems of the distribution chain unless they explicitly don't want to, nor they should see them unless they explicitly don't want to. Displaying a list of packages that could not be installed because they have some problems might be ok but that's where I would draw the line. > > 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. > This is similiarly stupid. > > With the dnf behavioral change > - dnf needs to inform users about the broken packages by default > - dnf now needs an option which does the opposite to --skip-broken > (--no-skip-broken). > > I am very sure you'll see a similiar amount of mails related to broken > packages as before. To be honest with you, I haven't seen a single one in dnf. If you find it, I will rest my case. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
