Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 16:34 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> It says a lot about the yum developpers state of mind that even a direct >> quote from a well-accepted standard attracts this kind of response. > > The standards don't say squat about WHAT removes the cache. Yums cache > is completely regeneratable, provided that the repository is still > available. However the yum developers stance is that yum itself will > not take the chance that the user really doesn't want that cache laying > around, so it leaves it up to THE USER to clear disabled / removed repo > cache. What is so hard about this to understand? If yum is so concerned about this "data" safety why is it storing it in a filesystem tree specifically reserved for stuff that can be removed without notice? But anyway this was not my point. >> Guys, >> if you don't want to listen to others, and have only abuse to offer, don't >> answer questions at all. Why do you think every single yum thread is >> degenerating lately ? Every single poster but you is brain-damaged ? > > The only 'abuse' I see When people take shots at quotes from a neutral text like the FHS, that shows they're only interested in harassing people that disagree with Seth, and have nothing to contribute to the discussion itself. (I imagine it's as embarrassing for Seth as having an "helpful" friend yell the sky is green because you're disagreeing with someone who noted in the course of his argument the sky is blue) -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
