On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 17:19 +0200, Florian Festi wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:30:05 +0100 > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> That strategy is, quite simply, wrong. > > > > Then work to fix the strategy, don't shoot the tools for following the > > requested script. Dropping snide comments about them doesn't make > > anybody any more eager to listen to you. > > The point is that in fact yum is the problem (not the only one). Yum - as an > updating tool - should honor the user's previously made decisions as much as > possible. To be able to do that on a multilib system yum needs to take arch > into account for more or less every decision (especially the arch of the > already installed packages). As yum didn't do that in the past introducing > multilib would have required to rewrite all package selection code within > yum (and some other parts of the tool chain). Instead people came up with > the "install everything" policy with the hope this would hide most problems > of the non multilib aware tools. As we all known this only works for the > simplest cases - not to mention all the other drawbacks that come up on this > list every week (as in this thread). Umm, you have it backward. When I was originally writing in the multilib support I asked how it should be done and was told, at the time, by Jeremy that it should install both of them b/c that's what users would want/expect. At least, that's what I vaguely recall. This has been about 3 years, now. > > So it is not about changing the "default policy" but about having a sane > behavior in our tools that do not depend on any policy but just work [1]. Wrong. It's about the policy. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
