Re: Some fedora devel inconsistencies...

--=-y50iagZKJK4RhNRyNfC9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le jeu 13/11/2003 =E0 22:56, Panu Matilainen a =E9crit :
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 23:28, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le jeu 13/11/2003 =E0 21:46, seth vidal a =E9crit :

> > > You're right - if you specify 'yum update' and something fails, it wo=
n't
> > > run the update. That's behavior that, to me, protects the user from
> > > stupid stupid shite.
> > I don't expect yum to do miracles and update when dependencies are not
> > satisfied. Blocking on unrelated packages dep errors OTOH is a bit
> > excessive IMHO.
>=20
> OTOH apt occasionally gets pretty wild ideas how to "fix" something when
> all dependencies aren't met: someone on freshrpms list just complained
> about apt wanting to remove 330 packages from his system after
> (obviously partial) upgrade from RHL 7.3 to 9 - that's not particularly
> productive behavior either :)

In this case I'd have been satisfied with yum just ignoring the packages
it couldn't place in its dependency graph:). Not a single package
removal needed;)

(and yes apt can get wild - but if I understand well, yum will block
every single time whereas I know from experience apt is right most of
the times)

Cheers,

--=20
Nicolas Mailhot

--=-y50iagZKJK4RhNRyNfC9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/tAU2I2bVKDsp8g0RAlw2AKCglGBksBzYdDLgs0wXy/u5KBlfmACgibKJ
bKI2mHyOgnvoO/rgHDlDrkY=
=Vw/M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-y50iagZKJK4RhNRyNfC9--


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list