On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 15:12 +0100, Florian Festi wrote: > 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...). > > OK, I should be a bit more verbose here. I just wanted to avoid anyone > spending unnecessary time with my example. > > Going up dep graph has two problems: > > 1. We do not remove the packages we added for dependency. We can end up with > just adding a library package that is not used by anyone as the requiring > package got removed. This sucks. So going into the other direction is a must. > > 2. Removing all the packages that lead to the problems doesn't give a chance > to use an alternative package that might be available and fixes the problem.
I really hate this way of things working. It is one of the steps that smart takes and on many occasions it is exactly opposite of what I want to have happen. I realize this is optional behavior but it still makes me cringe all over. -sv _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
