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

Re: yum --skip-broken update by default?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, John Ellson wrote:

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"JE" == John Ellson <john ellson comcast net> writes:

JE> Why?  Thats a dumb way to select features.  Make them not-conflict
JE> and provide some kind of configuration option.

Because there have been certain difficulties in getting these packages
to live with each other, requiring various finessing which as I
understand things has been progressing.

I mean, come on, two syslog daemons?  Each needing to own (and do
things like provide log rotation for) the same files?  Alternatives
isn't going to handle that, you know.  And as I understand it, there
are actually three syslog daemons people might want to use, all with
the same issues.  You make it sound as if these things have absolutely
trivial solutions, and the only reason for making them conflict is to
annoy you.  Do you even allow for the possibility that there's an
actual difficult issue here?

 - J<

Sure I allow that. But we're off track. My primary complaint is that this dependency conflict isn't listed in the daily yum updates dependency list and that yum doesn't deal with it automatically.

How would you recommend it be dealt with? And remember we have to have an acceptable behavior for 'yum -y update'.

When there is a conflict should we:
1. assume the existing pkgs are better
2. assume the installing pkgs are better

argument in favor of 1 is that the existing pkgs are on the system and should therefore be protected as a possible running service.

argument in favor of 2 is that the user is requesting an action and the user knows best, therefore the requested action must be the 'best' action.

I bet out of 1000 fedora users I'll get an almost even split between them.

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