Le lundi 23 janvier 2006 à 10:23 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit : > On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 19:08 -0500, Neal Becker wrote: > > > > I strongly believe that most users would prefer the smart behavior, or at > > least the option of being asked. Specifically, if some dependencies have > > problems, offer to go ahead with other packages that don't have problems. > > Working around broken deps is not a smart thing to automate. While > there are hard deps, there maybe some soft deps that are just unknown. > When testing, tests are performed with ALL the updates in place, not a > smattering of them This is all well and dandy for traditional base + updates systems, it's an assumption that's dead wrong for rolling releases like rawhide. This thread as shown nothing @rh checks rawhide iterations are self-consistent before pushing them. So there are no "good" distro states, only a string of "gray" system states, and it's totally wrong of yum to expect a "good" system state will appear some time in the future. Hell, in theory it would be possible for rawhide to never be in a state yum likes from FCx to FCx+1T1 -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
