seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 10:25 +0100, Thomas M Steenholdt wrote:
Fact of the matter is, that even though people should report such
iregularities, it would be a lot less work for everybody, if yum would
update the largest portion of updates that do not have any dependency
problems. I know we've been over this like a thousand times, but I still
see no valid reason not to make yum do this!
That would cause the 1 or 2 or 3 packages with probles to be held back,
not the rest.
and it would give users very little awareness that something didn't get
patched.
giving them a false sense of security.
-sv
The burden of a broken repo/updates should not be placed on the end
user. If there is a dependency problem, then the maintainer of the repo
and/or package should be notified and is responsible for fixing the
problem. What good does it do for the end user? If yum, pup, or pirut
notes that packages x,y & z were not updated then no one would get a
false sense of security (no more a false sense than when none of the
packages are updated anyway). Plus this would be a little more
presentable and user friendly.
Demond - beating a dead horse
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
