FC6 updates broken deps?

[seth vidal]

On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 10:25 +0100, Thomas M Steenholdt wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wednesday 21 February 2007 15:59, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >> Does that depcheck also cover multi-lib? Because except for the
> >> first one, I still see these:
> >>
> >> source rpm: python-virtinst-0.98.0-1.fc6.src.rpm
> >> package: python-virtinst - 0.98.0-1.fc6.noarch from
> >> fedora-core-updates-6-ppc unresolved deps:
> >>      libvirt-python >= 0:0.1.4-4
> >>
> >> source rpm: bind-9.3.4-2.fc6.src.rpm
> >> package: bind-devel - 31:9.3.4-2.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64
> >>   unresolved deps:
> >>      libdns.so.22
> >>      libbind9.so.0
> >>      libisccc.so.0
> >>      liblwres.so.9
> >>      libisccfg.so.1
> >>      libisc.so.11
> >>
> >> source rpm: compiz-0.3.6-2.fc6.src.rpm
> >> package: compiz-devel - 0.3.6-2.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64
> >>   unresolved deps:
> >>      libdecoration.so.0
> >>
> >> source rpm: kdeedu-3.5.6-0.1.fc6.src.rpm
> >> package: kdeedu - 3.5.6-0.1.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64
> >>   unresolved deps:
> >>      libpython2.4.so.1.0
> >>
> >> source rpm: kdeutils-3.5.6-0.1.fc6.src.rpm
> >> package: kdeutils-devel - 6:3.5.6-0.1.fc6.i386 from
> >> fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64 unresolved deps:
> >>      libkmilo.so.1
> >>      libkregexpeditorcommon.so.1
> >>      libksimcore.so.1
> >>      libkhexeditcommon.so.0
> >>      libkcmlaptop.so.0
> >>
> >> source rpm: poppler-0.5.4-5.fc6.src.rpm
> >> package: poppler-devel - 0.5.4-5.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64
> >>   unresolved deps:
> >>      libpoppler-qt.so.1
> > 
> > Hrm, I'm not entirely sure, I'll have to defer to Luke Macken on that one.
> > 
> > I'm surprised that these haven't been reported before, people are generally 
> > really quick to notice broken deps in the updates repos.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Fact of the matter is, that even though people should report such 
> iregularities, it would be a lot less work for everybody, if yum would 
> update the largest portion of updates that do not have any dependency 
> problems. I know we've been over this like a thousand times, but I still 
> see no valid reason not to make yum do this!
> 
> That would cause the 1 or 2 or 3 packages with probles to be held back, 
> not the rest.
> 

and it would give users very little awareness that something didn't get
patched.

giving them a false sense of security.

-sv