On 10. 4. 2015 at 08:53:46, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 8.4.2015 17:36, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 04/08/2015 08:39 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
>> On 8. 4. 2015 at 10:26:51, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 08.04.2015 um 08:41 schrieb Jan Zelený:
>>>> Putting the opinion of myself and the dnf team aside, I'd like to
point
>>>> out
>>>> that the information you want is still available - dnf check-update
>>>> will
>>>> show you all the updates, even those that have broken deps. Running
>>>> this
>>>> command right after dnf upgrade will list you those that could not be
>>>> installed
>>>
>>> the world don't work that way
>>>
>>> *nobody* even not myself would call "dnf check-update" after
"dnf
>>> upgrade" installed updates and did not complain about anything
>>
>> You are right, people use it the other way - we have had reports stating
>> that dnf check-update shows packages that dnf upgrade doesn't select. In
>> other words, the information about broken updates is still available to
>> the user.>
> Perhaps dnf should keep track whether it had to 'skip-broken' , and report
> packages that were skipped during the update?
I very much agree with this. As a user, I expect that 'dnf upgrade' will
give me latest packages and that DNF will tell me the fact that newer
packages are available but not installable.
Maybe it could have a form of plugin, at least for the beginning?
Again, dnf check-update already does that. While I understand the request to
make it more convenient, I can't promise you that we will do that. Please try
to understand, we try to keep dnf as structurally clean as possible and
duplicating functionality does not help that.
Thanks
Jan