yum --skip-broken update by default?

[John Ellson]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM, John Ellson <john.ellson at comcast.net> wrote:
>   
>> How about just within the current Fedora collection?
>>     
>
> You missed the point.
>
> If we make skip-broken work silently by default and do not notify
> users about the crap being skipped... 
That would be fine, and notify the developers too, but then just install 
the rest of the updates
without quitting on me.







> then our users who have 3rd
> party repos installs will be missing Fedora updates.   That means..
> they will silently fail to receive Fedora signed security updates. Not
> cool. We can't just turn a blind-eye to that because they have 3rd
> party repos enabled if we deliberately choose a default setting which
> does that sort of thing silently.
>
> Then there is also crap like locally installed packages..which were
> downloaded from outside a repository structure.  Poeple do it. We make
> it easy for them to do via a url handler in Firefox. There's no bloody
> way a team of testers can catch that.
>
> You can not possibly hit all the in the wild cases where someone is
> going be affected by a broken dep chain which prevents them from
> getting a Fedora signed security update with a small team of testers
> who dedicate their very existence to testing for depchain breakage.
> We have to notify users as its happening on their systems. I've no
> problem giving them a choice to skip once they are notified.. but they
> absolutely must be notified that updates are being skipped and whether
> those updates are considered security or critical.  To silently ignore
> that those updates aren't being installed, is a failure to adequately
> notify users so they can make informed choices.
>
> -jef
>
>   


-- 
John Ellson