On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 16:47, Todd Lyons wrote: > I can see the scenario that you want to deal with, but is it easier to > just add one line to your skip.list or to rewrite key portions of the > urpmi script(s) and lib to do it? All or none are always easier than > "some", especially when the definition of "some" changes per sysadmin. > Honestly I feel that is what skip.list is for.
What I am asking for is to back out some changes to make the tool simpler. I would guess that worrying about all the dependencies for the entire system is more work than just the ones I am upgrading, but maybe I'm wrong. Really I would just like an explanation of why the new behavior is desired. I would ask the Debian folks, but I'm not in the mood for a religious battle. > As usual, fpons is the ultimate authority on it as it's his baby. His response confused me. He claimed it should not be worrying about unrelated unresolved dependencies (like apt does), but in my case it is. And I am 100% sure that this is an unrelated case. > You seem pretty aversed to editing skip.list. What reasoning is behind > your position? The main reason is because I want urpmi to stay the best tool possible. There are very few things more annoying that someone taking a good perfectly working tool and "enhancing" it only to make it less functional than before. I get this all the time at work and it's extremely frustrating. -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org
