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

Re: yum clean bug

Denis Leroy wrote:

> Neal Becker wrote:
>> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>>>IMHO, yum is behaving exactly as it should.  When I disable a
>>>repository, yum has no idea why I have done it, and should not disregard
>>>my wishes and change anything about that repository.  As for
>>>repositories that no longer have configurations, I don't want yum making
>>>any assumptions there, either.  I have no problems going in and cleaning
>>>out the cache manually if space becomes an issue.  It would be easy
>>>enough to create a cron job to do the job.  If someone wants to create a
>>>script to go along with yum-utils or to stand alone, I would see nothing
>>>wrong with that.  I'm sure that would be a welcomed idea.  I also
>>>wouldn't complain about a '--sanitize' option in yum, but the current
>>>behavior is what I would expect and want.
>> Well, for the record, I disagree.  Is there really any reason for
>> disabling, except that the repo doesn't play nicely with others, so that
>> I don't want
>> it enabled by default?  If so, why would I run clean all, and not want to
>> clean it?
>> The fact is, I have a couple of repos disabled by default, such as
>> updates-testing.  They had eaten lots of disk space.  I did clean all.  I
>> certainly did not expect this behavior.  If this is really the way we
>> want it to act, please clearly document that we need to add
>> --enablerepo=* to clean disabled repos.
> +1. Only cleaning enabled repositories seems very counter intuitive.

I guess the question comes down to, what do I mean by "disabled"?  According
to the proposed model, "disabled" means _everything_ is disabled.  What I,
and I believe many others want, is disable installing.

Perhaps "disabled" should be split into multiple options?  disable-install,
disable-clean, etc?

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