On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 22:28 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Bob Gustafson wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 13:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 21:24 -0700, Craig White wrote: > >> > >>>> the download by pkg size behavior was changed precisely b/c of how many > >>>> raving complaints we got about it. > >>>> > >>>> Seems like we can't win. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> And the first person to say "well then make it an option" gets told to > >>>> stop talking until they're maintaining the code. > >>> ---- > >>> those are the people who infuriate you by eating the icing from the > >>> middle of the Oreo's first. > >>> > >>> I'm clearly just eat the cookie kind of person. > >> > >> I like the download-by-package-size behaviour, but I ALSO eat the icing > >> first. > >> > >> I reject your orthodoxy, tyrant! > >> -- > > > > When it comes to yum, there is only one tyrant.. > > eyeroll. > > yes. I'm a horrible tyrant b/c I generally think that the only line of > code that is bug free is the line of code that WAS NEVER WRITTEN. > > I also think that LESS CODE == BETTER. > > I do not think features are always better and I frequently think that > having a knob for everything doesn't help anyone, least of all the > maintainers of the code. > > > -sv > Ahh, but with yum, you must be very careful when deleting/removing a component, because of all the dependencies that get ripped out too. This is because you did not include a usage count for each component. Some folks would consider that a serious omission, (debian folks), rather than LESS == BETTER. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
