> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:55:38 +0400 > Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > You can't have both. You can't (always) install them in alphabetical > > order without breaking dependencies. And urpmi can't check _all_ > > dependencies so there is no guarantee that installation won't fail. > > > You are correct, as usual,but I would still like to have the files dled > in the same order as listed. > Then if 1 or several fail to dl there is no need to guess as to which > simply check their order on the list. >
what is really needed is intelligent cache management. Then you would not even notice such problem. Just restart installation using different source and it continues from where it stopped before. Dreams dreams :)
