[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Some fedora devel inconsistencies...

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

> > > You're right - if you specify 'yum update' and something fails, it won'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.
> 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)


Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]