On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 19:45 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> Well, I thought there was a process for package submission,
review and
> what not. Of course accidents happen. But this is no excuse, or is a
> "meta packager" like yum not better than plain rpm in itself?
> As far as I can see, I have to solve about as many problems as I did
> without a metapackager (--obsoletes, --exclude=..., etc...). The job of
> a meta packager is making things easier.
it's not the job of the metapackagers to let potentially serious
problems go unseen. That's ridiculous.
What do you think of a security update that doesn't update because
there's a bug in an unrelated package?
How "potentially serious" a problem would that be?
The job of a metapackager is making updating easier, not harder just as
hard as if it wasn't there.
That's like saying: My kernel shouldn't scream at me about
hard drive
failures, it should quietly let them happen.
I fail to see a resemblance. I'm saying to not touch with the
problematic packages but try to keep on with the rest, if possible.
There would be a resemblance if I was saying to install even if it
screamed of a problem...
if there is a potential conflict that can't really be resolved,
prompt
the user.
Yum doesn't prompt. Barfs. You could be right if it did, but
_it_doesn't_.
You can handle it. Fine.
I can handle it. Fine.
But is it satisfying the purpose?
> Anyway, loops are not that hard to find, just mark where
you've been
> previously (prolog 101) and handle apropriately (ie, until repo fixes
> it, I can't do anything that touches foo, bar or baz, may I proceed with
> the rest?).
okay then define the procedure. Set up the standard for handling mutual
obsoleting packages and updates.
you write up the process for what has to occur and get EVERYONE to agree
on it and I'll write the code.
In a very highlevel way, I already did, wouldn't you say so?
You simple mark where you've been so far (and where you have had
problems), and check for those marks at each package.
A mutual obsolete is just another kind of loop.
There's no need to deny it from the start like you seem to be doing.
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html