On Monday 24 January 2005 23:06, Darrin Thompson wrote: > I think what bothers me about this is that I'm having trouble > identifying what I trust in the before missingok scenario vs. what I > mistrust in the after scenario. I think it's that the correct use of > the feature is distributed so widely that it would be hard for me to > reestablish trust in the new regime. If you trust the provider, then the package should be trusted to do its job. If not, bugzilla. Barring reference to GPG sigs, using a feature of RPM is not going to affect trust either positively or negatively: it's the provider, how they wield the tool, and their historical performance wielding it. An update may or may not bring in the missing packages in the depsolver--this has yet to be implemented, at all. But, this does nothing but potentially bloat disk space a little. Does that mean you lose trust? I dunno; but, it's readily resolved. RFE or patch depsolver is the best bet. -- -jeff
