On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 18:23 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 18:14 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote: > > Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Tuesday 08 August 2006 07:19, David D. Hagood wrote: > > > > > >>It seems to me that continually having to direct people to a script to > > >>bludgeon YUM into updating the system, rather than either fixing YUM, > > >>fixing the procedures that allow the repos to break, or moving to a tool > > >>(like APT) that deals with broken repositories is like saying "yes, the > > >>door locks don't work - here's a coat hanger." > > Yum still should be able to break into a mode where it would install the > > packages that can safely be installed, instead of just dying with a > > complaint. Since yum is the base for pup and pirut, the features would > > increase the ease of there use. > to be fair - you can do that now: > > #yum shell > > update > > transaction solve > > <error happens and it tells you what the problem is> > > > transaction reset > > config exclude packagename > > update > > transaction solve > > run hmm... not all that friendly :-) :-) I've heard a rumor there is a philosophical opposition to a "install what you can" mode of yum operation because of the potential to do unintended damage to a system, this is probably a valid concern. If safety is the root cause of the concern I still think there is sufficient desire for this feature by enough folks to trump its exclusion. Just let the user beware and they can accept the consequences if they explicitly enable it. -- John Dennis <jdennis@xxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list