On 10.4.2015 09:18, Jan Zelený wrote:
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.
I was thinking more about a plugin which calls 'check-update' automatically
when 'upgrade' command finishes.
--
Petr^2 Spacek