On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:35:26AM +0100, Tomas Forsman wrote: > >i guess the easiest workaround is to remove either package from system-model, > >but can someone explain what is actually going wrong here? > So both issues is that those packages aren't in our group anymore.
thanks, so it is pure coincidence that the two machines fail with the same type of error. i am wondering though, what would be the best way to avoid these kinds of errors? redirects of course for packages where it makes sense, but what about the lives case? asuming that the previous version was working, the user is now forced to decide to remove the packacge manually or not upgrade. could conary detect this case, and would it be helpful if it was more verbose about it? or is that the job of packagekit? could the groups be adjusted to keep the old binary around? (might work in some cases, but could get messy in others i guess) should the package redirect to an empty package? that would fix updateall, but it might surprise the user. i am interested to figure out what is the most user-friendly way to deal with such cases... greetings, martin. -- eKita - the online platform for your entire academic life -- chief engineer eKita.co pike programmer caudium.net societyserver.org foresight developer community.gotpike.org foresightlinux.org unix sysadmin pike.lysator.liu.se realss.com Martin Bähr working in china http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/ _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
