On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 08:44:35AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2007, Michael E Brown wrote:
> >
> >If, when you gave the conflict message ("/bin/file3 from package foo
> >conflicts with /bin/file3 from package bar"), you also mentioned the
> >vendor, that might allevate some problems. ("/bin/file3 from package
> >foo, vendor 'evil repo' conflicts with file /bin/file3 from package bar,
> >vendor 'goot repo'")
>
> Been reading the EPEL repotag flamewars I see :)
Yes, unfortunately. I wish they would end, as I'm getting tired of them.
I just noticed that the complaint has always been 'users getting
confused where a package comes from' and several people have taken yum's
name in vain. But I also noticed that nobody had brought the issue up
over here to see if there is a constructive solution to the problem.
>
> And yes, I agree, dragging the vendor string out of the dark cave it's
> been hiding in all these years would seem to be a good thing. It's just
> that screen estate is already a scarce resource, there's no room on
> 80char terminal to put the potentially lengthy vendor string into, unless
> per-package info is split on two lines.
It might be possible that complaints could be solved by selective and
careful application of vendor name to the places where it is generating
user complaints. We might not need to print vendor every time we print
package name. It might be possible to solve the situation by only
printing vendor in error strings.
Would have to pull in one of the big proponents of repotags to get their
view, though.
> Of course that's not an issue with GUI', no reason not to make vendor
> string visible in yumex, pirut etc.
Agreed.
--
Michael
_______________________________________________
Yum-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
