Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid

[Mark Scott]

Quel Qun wrote:

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 21:19, Vox wrote:

This time Steve Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> becomes daring and writes:

I would much prefer to see the tool remain smart. Really, why should it
even care if unrelated dependencies are unresolved? It's kind of like
getting into other people's business even though they didn't ask you to.
(ok, maybe that's not the best analogy, but it's all I can think of)

 I actually like to think that urpmi getting old unresolved deps
 flagged is A Good Thing(tm). If you don't care for deps, don't use a
 package *manager*.

I must say I disagree here. He surely do care for deps and that --justdb
trick is just like installing a tarball on an rpm system.

Leaving the SuperFoo in the rpm database allows to keep track of the
installed files and remove them easily.

There should be a way to tell urpmi to ignore a certain list of rpm and
only deal with what it knows, i.e. what is in the hdlist.

Does putting the rpm name in /etc/urpmi/skip.list stop the attempted removal? It stops upgrading to packages (such as ignore apache2, I want to stick with apache thanks).

If not, perhaps a /etc/urpmi/noremove.list?
--
Mark Scott