On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:15:42PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: > On 10. 4. 2015 at 08:56:16, Steve Clark wrote: > > It is naive, in my opinion, to assume that Fedora is going to supply all the > > packages one might need. I quite frequently run into the problem of > > dependencies from other repos clashing with Fedora's, and others and have > > to use the information provided by yum to determine how to clean things up. > > In what is proposed now I will have to do two steps to determine there is a > > problem. > > > Ok, I think I understand your problem a little better now, even though I still > maintain the opinion that dnf should not be a debugging tool. I have seen a > few proposals here that have the potential to be a nice compromise. Another problem can result from someone rebuilding a package locally to get a newer version. If now a library is updated in an incompatible way for security reasons, this would break the update. Therefore it is not just a debugging issue but simply just reporting-that-there-is-a-bug issue. > Also I wonder if dnf check-update is actually useful. From what I've read > here, it seems it's barely used. If dnf is to have its functionality covered > by the upgrade command, perhaps it's possible to remove the check-update > command. Maybe check-update can be changed to just display which updates the update command would really install instead of just telling which it might install. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
