On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 18:33 +0200, drago01 wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > Am 07.04.2015 um 17:53 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: >> > > >> > > On 04/07/2015 05:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> > > > >> > > > dnf's default behavior is like yum with --skip-broken already. >> > > >> > > >> > > WHAT? >> > > >> > > --skip-broken is a band-aid to work around packaging mistakes >> > > and bugs >> > > and NOT be the default. >> > > >> > > IMO, this kind of behavior is not helpful and therefore should >> > > be reverted >> > >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > that's unacceptable and leads in burry *real* problems resulting >> > in sonner >> > or later security updates are broken and nobody take snotice soon >> > enough >> >> The bug is elsewhere though ... i.e. that is even possible to push >> updates with broken deps. >> Rawhide is a different story but everything that goes through bodhi >> (stable releases and branched) should simply refuse pushes with >> broken >> deps. > > This is easier said than done. We don't have a perfect dependency > checker and it's not at all easy to write one. tflink and John Dulaney > have more details if you're interested, but yes, this is not a trivial > thing we can just wave a wand and make happen.
We do have dep solvers otherwise no one would notice that a dep is broken ever. (like libsolv + hawkey). So what bodhi should do is to ask "has this package all dependencies satisfied with base + updates + other packages in this push" for every package in the push. If the answer is "no" for a package cancel the push; remove it; restart and only push the once that has satisfied deps. Report the failed once to the maintainers so that they can fix it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
