seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 14:45 +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
Sorry. It looks like the skip broken code works exactly the opposite way I
thought: It removes the packages that leads to the problem.
I've commited two test cases that give an idea why this might not be the
best strategy (hmm, may be I should add some doc strings...).
There's a lot of the test case you're describing in
testAlternativePackageAvailable() that has much more to do with intent.
if I type
yum install foo bar-1.1
and skipbroken realizes bar-1.1 can't be installed and backtracks it out
and replaces it with bar-ng. I, as the user, am going to be fairly
pissed.
..
-sv
_______________________________________________
Yum-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
As it works now:
foo is the initial transaction.
the depsolver adds bar to the transaction.
bar fails because for baz is missing
skip-broken removes bar & foo and leaves an empty transaction.
As testcase suggest it should do this:
foo is the initial transaction.
the depsolver adds bar to the transaction.
bar fails because for baz is missing
skip-broken removes bar
the depsolver adds bar-ng and the transaction completes ok.
this can only happen if skip-broken is excluding bar from the package
sack too, else the depsolver will pick up bar again, and then we got a
loop and skip-broken will bail out and return the depsolver errors.
As far as i can see can see, the current way, is right at the moment, i
don't give unpredicted results for the user.
Tim
_______________________________________________
Yum-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
