On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 06:25 +1030, n0dalus wrote: > For that matter, why should `yum clean packages` only clean packages > in enabled repos? The entire conversation could apply equally to all > the clean sub-commands. Just saying that 'all' is the combination of > all the other clean commands doesn't actually change the discussion in > any meaninful way. > > Yum is doing just as much guess work by assuming the user doesn't want > disabled/removed repos to be cleaned. It has already been concluded in > the leading discussion that 'all' is simply an ambiguous word in this > case and that the documentation might benefit from improvements > reflecting this. You are correct. Yum is guessing and guessing is prone to error. But, since we are prone to error, we're going to error on the safe side, and go after the enabled repos, rather than everything. This is the safer option. This is the way it works. Absolutely nobody is stopping you from submitting patches for the documentations. Seth has said nothing wrt to this. Instead of discussing this indefinitely, do something productive? -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
