----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Hughes" <tom(a)compton.nu>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 12:11:54 PM
Subject: Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum
On 09/04/15 11:10, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 09/04/15 10:30, Radek Holy wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 08:22:53 -0400,
>>> Radek Holy <rholy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK, YUM's --skip-broken does two things:
>>>> 1) it selects another version of the requested package if the most
>>>> suitable
>>>> cannot be installed
>>>> 2) it skips the requested package if none of its versions can be
>>>> installed
>>>>
>>>> (2) was intentionally not supported in DNF so far but we have been
>>>> repeatedly receiving bug reports complaining that this
"feature" is
>>>> missing. We have finally received a use case for it and thus we are
>>>> considering an implementation as a plugin.
>>>
>>> Doesn't 2 apply if no package list is given for dnf update?
>>>
>>
>> Hm, well, in case of upgrade some version of the given package is
>> already installed so literally no (because the already installed
>> version can be installed :-) ). But let's say that we both are correct
>> because upgrade is kind of special in this case. We can think about
>> changing the upgrade command to be consistent with the install command
>> if there is a demand to do that but so far I'm fine with the current
>> situation. I think that in case of upgrade, it's more common to ask to
>> upgrade as much as you can while in case of install, users/scripts
>> prefer to install everything or fail otherwise. Moreover I think that
>> the change could annoy a lot of users.
>
> Sounds reasonable, but include distro-sync in the upgrade case please...
>
> That was one of the issues I ran into the other day, where I did
> something like "dnf distro-sync b*" and if failed because one of the
> installed packages which matched the wildcard didn't exist in any repo.
Hmm. Think I misread a bit what you were talking about, but my request
still stands ;-)
Hm, I think that it depends on the use case. AFAIK, distro-sync is mostly used to upgrade
Fedora (an unsupported approach AFAIK) and to replace some testing/3rd-party versions of
package with the "official" ones. (BTW, I'd appreciate if anyone will share
their use case) While in the first case, I think that the upgrade's behaviour is
preferred, in the other case, the install's behaviour is better IMO. (Which
dangerously indicates that the --skip-broken switch is a good solution :( )
Anyway, file an RFE (if it isn't filed already) please. We can track/discuss it
there.
Thank you in advance
--
Radek HolĂ˝
Associate Software Engineer
Software Management Team
Red Hat Czech