On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:12 +0100, Joachim Frieben wrote: > > 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. > > Because it gives more control to the user as most other issues pointed > out by me. He might use "updates-testing" but only from time to time > and at least want to know that package "xyz" comes from channel "A" and > not from channel "B". The same applies to 3rd party repositories. > With "pup", you feel like driving a car without safety belt. And I argue that users don't know or care the difference between repositories and that by giving them the option of disabling just certain repositories, you're giving them a quick avenue to breaking their system. > > Some of the sizings and spacing still need work with pup, definitely. > > That's the sort of modifications that are easy to make once the code is > > working and thus it hasn't been high on my todo list. File bugs and > > we'll definitely see about getting to them as soon as we can. > > > > Great, but that's even more than I requested. However, "up2date-gnome" > does an excellent job at all this right now. But does up2date do an excellent job of providing the user experience we're trying to provide where things are intentionally not just "here's a list of packages"? I don't think so. up2date also has its own implementation of huge chunks of yum that are difficult to just abstract out and switch so that we can have one dependency resolver being used underneath all of the tools we use for package handling on Fedora. up2date is just not the code base for doing that. Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
