On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 03:48 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:54:49 +0100, Ralf Ertzinger > > <fedora-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I am running rawhide with smart. Enabled repos are fc-devel@0, freshrpms@0, > > > dag@-5 newrpms@-5, atrpms-stable@-10, atrpms-good@-10, atrpms-bleeding@-20. > > > > > > It's heaven. > > > > Maybe to you... but i have sincere doubts that using smart is helping > > to identify real packaging problems that exist. Has smart helped you > > identify and report any rawhide packaging bugs? > > I don't think smart is intended to be a tool to identify real packaging > problems. But there's a nice option that prints all unsatisfied > dependencies. And I hope we can extend that dialog with more details of > problems. > > In fact this dialog has helped Dries and me to improve our repository and > fix a number of issues 3 days after Smart was released. Smart was also > able to tell what old packages were still available that had issues we > already fixed. > > Apart from that, I don't think it's good behaviour to bail out if there is > a packaging problem. People may miss important updates just because > somewhere, someone made a mistake. It could even be due to a mirror > inconsistency, not something that can be fixed by a packager anyway. > I think the situation where it exits with all the problems listed is better than cheerily moving along and seemingly finishing completely even though not all updates have been applied. -sv
