icon at phy.duke.edu
Tue Jun 18 13:32:24 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 08:19, Robert G. Brown wrote:
> I'll also state unambiguously -- many (most?) of the future users of yum
> will not be able to cope with the stream of messages indicating
> conflicted dependencies on an upgrade. If it ain't automagic for them,
> it's broke. They won't care about who screwed up or why it isn't
> working, they'll just consider the tool broken and will drop it.
This is a valid point, but I will have to disagree with the course of
action. Consider an analogy:
Most websites are written for Internet Explorer, and thus are
effectively broken. Mozilla refuses to display Explorer-specific markup
and will therefore show the page incorrectly. We don't nag Mozilla
developers to "fix" this, but instead bitch at the maintainers of that
website to get off their asses and provide valid webpages.
I don't see why we should act in any way different with yum. If a
package is broken -- it's broken. Moreover, apart from some very few
exceptions, our trees are usually upgradeable with all dependencies
resolving (Bero is a separate [nut]case). If the end-user in question
(meaning you) installs some packages on their own that end up breaking
dependencies either during the installation or during the upgrade, they
are effectively their own angry pinoccio.
0> Konstantin ("Icon") Riabitsev
/ ) Duke University Physics Sysadmin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum/attachments/20020618/8c5b1a88/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the Yum