On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 09:35 -0800, Florin Andrei wrote: > Thomas M Steenholdt wrote: > > > Really - The reason dependency issues are such a big issue for fedora is > > that all updates are held back because of a single package missing a > > dependency. I'm sure everybody would feel better holding back one > > package instead of all updates on this account. > > If I'm not mistaken, yum seems fairly unique in this regard. > > I mean, heck, look at Microsoft for example. Their update thing applies > as many patches as possible, and those that cannot be applied, well duh, > they don't get applied and the user is notified by big honking red icons > that something failed. You don't need to go as far as pointing to a broken update service like MS's one. Other Linux distributions (Ubuntu) update as much as possible and warn the user that some packages can't be updated (it also goes as far as telling you that you should do a dist-upgrade instead of just an upgrade in some cases), and they stay in the list of updates as long as the problem is not fixed. And it makes perfectly sense. I had on one of my systems a custom package that kept another one from being updated and it was OK for me. I would have been pissed off if I had to manually update or had to remove and reinstall my package each time to let the update process get through for all the other gazillion of packages. > But a single error doesn't nuke the whole process. yum is _really_ > boneheaded from this perspective. Your argument that a possibly much > more important security update might get masked by a dependency error > and is not applied is a very serious one and I don't think there can be > any logical rebuttal. +1 > yum needs to be fixed, NOW. At this moment the update process puts > everyone at risk. +1 Simo. -- Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx> Sr Software Engineer Base Operating Systems Red Hat Inc. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
