<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=607474214-22102007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
didn't mean to open a can of worms when I asked the original
question:)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=607474214-22102007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=607474214-22102007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Arch</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
fedora-test-list-bounces@redhat.com
[mailto:fedora-test-list-bounces@redhat.com]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim
Lauridsen<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 22, 2007 10:39 AM<BR><B>To:</B> For
testers of Fedora Core development releases<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Policy or
best practice on mentioning dependency issues<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>seth vidal
wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:1193059004.8542.274.camel@cutter type="cite"><PRE wrap="">On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:46 +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">For dist upgrades it might even be
necessary to remove already installed pkgs. This all has to be done with
care or you end up with a system with some of the essential pkgs (kernel,
glibc, yum, Python, ...) missing or in an endless loop.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><!---->
there are several thousand ways that I hate "removing already installed
pkgs" as an automatic solution to a depsolving problem. That kind of
thinking for me does not fill me with confidence as I've watched that
behavior screw up far too often.
-sv
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>+1<BR><BR>Tim<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>