On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 12:12 -0800, Tim Fenn wrote: > > It's because this is a safer behaviour than guessing around various > > errors. You think it's wonderful, but it's far more error-prone than not > > doing anything "automagically" until the problem is actually fixed. > > Working around brokenness is a very slippery path to far graver and more > > obscure brokenness down the line. > > > > Perhaps it was a bad example (I don't think smart will break deps to > perform an upgrade, but I could be wrong). Some interesting cases > (where indeed both yum and apt fail): > > http://zorked.net/smart/doc/README.html#study-cases Yeah, and this is still unsafe, because downgrading is inherently, implicitly unsafe. 1. You can downgrade into a vulnerability 2. Downgrading often breaks, since newer version can do things in %post that make downgrading to a workable state impossible It's a fine feature, sure, but it's important that people understand -- yum doesn't offer this not because the developers are lazy, but because safety and consistency is the prime directive as far as yum's feature roadmap is concerned. Regards, -- Konstantin Ryabitsev McGill University WSG Montréal, Québec -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
