On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 15:17 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > The change owner proposed 4 options to move forward. I understand them as > follows: > > 1. do nothing, keep it broken > 2. disable this behavior by default, keep it optional, but keep it broken > 3. do not ignore already broken weak rich deps (partially reverts the change) > 4. change the behavior on dynamically depending on the dnf command used > (discouraged)
It's not clear to me whether any of these choices maps to "revert the Change and do exactly what F35 and earlier did", but on principle, that is the correct choice if no other choice is an improvement. It is not useful to change to a new behavior which is no better than the old behavior. If the Change can't be implemented as planned, ideally no change should happen at all. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
