On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:09:11 +0100, Ralf Ertzinger > <fedora-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > And just for the record: I read what it is trying to do before committing, > > and I know that downgrading or suspicious removal usually means that there > > is a bug somewhere. > > I'm not concerned about people like you or I... people who could be > considered technically proficient and who have experience > troubleshooting problems that are the result of packaging errors. I am > very concerned about what happens if/when novice users begin to use > smart as their primary tool. I admit that for advanced users who > understand when something is 'suspicious' this approach can be very > powerful... but for the 90% of the userbase who don't have a good > grasp as to when something is suspicious and when it is not.. this can > lead to problems. Especially if the advanced users using the same > tool.. aren't being encourage to file bugs. The best way to encourage > the filing of bugs is to stop execution and throw an error message. I bet you will get more rants than bug reports. Especially if important security fixes are in the pipeline and they are not installed because of a single unrelated problem. I wouldn't want to expose my family to packaging problems. > There is a better way in my head, involving keeping up with 'channel > policies' instead of 'priorities'.. i just have to find the words and > the time to articulate it. A way that allows smart to do exactly what > it does now when it needs to deal with overlapping addon repos when > you want to install something new... but flags reportable problems > when a channel or group of channels aren't self-consistent when they > should be. Smart has this, look in smart-gui at: Edit > Check All Packages -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
