Le dimanche 12 novembre 2006 à 13:00 +1030, n0dalus a écrit : > On 11/12/06, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > if you also try to auto-remove items from > > the tree to force consistency you risk massive cascade removals which > > don't do anyone any good... Letting things rot till the last FCT is not any better > > triggers and obsoletes could complicate > > any removal logic you dream up. Logic does not need to be perfect at first. Treating the 80% easy cases would still make work that much easier for other devs and testers (easy cases being openssl updates, multi-day xorg or gnome rebuilds, packagers forgetting to coordinate with others before a push…) > > And again, auto-removals from Core > > will add yet more complications for Extras developers who are building > > Extras packages against deps in Core. I'm not proposing a Core policy but a Fedora policy. We're merging, remember ? > It would still be nice to have packages held back in the case that > they require something that isn't there though, and I think it would > work quite well in stopping the majority of rawhide breakage. +1 Also the one big problem of the current system is a push will remove the previous "working" version, so unless you have the old one on your system (not the case for new anaconda installs or lazy updates) you're out of business. Including if you need to build against one of the broken packages -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
