On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 00:48 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 12:39:07AM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 10:54 +0100, Joachim Frieben wrote: > > > "up2date-gnome" has a very clear, informative interface. You start with a > > > channel windows that allows you review the available channels and to make > > > your choice. Very nice, indeed. > > > > Why would you want to not download updates from all repositories you > > have configured? Or at least see what's available. The fact that the > > updates come from multiple repositories is a detail that I don't think > > users really want to / should need to care about. > > The last time it happened to me, when yum fails to contact one repo, > a 'yum update' fails completely. Ie, it fails for every repo, instead > of downloading updates from the repos that it _could_ contact. > > If current yum has been fixed to work in the face of adversity, > then I agree, otherwise, the ability to easily disable a broken repo > is useful. How do you know that updating when a repository is broken is safe, though? If you have a local repository which shadows the main repo but with packages with config changes, going back to base could completely break your system. While punt to the user may be sufficient for you or for me (or pretty much everyone on this list), I don't think that it is for the "typical" end-user. Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
