On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, David Talkington wrote: > Bill Crawford wrote:
> > I'm surprised they did that split in the updates, because the ideal > >is that you can indeed do a "rpm -Fvh *" in your updates directory. > > Yes, indeedy, like I was saying ... > > They did the same damned thing with glibc a couple of releases ago. That > practice makes -F well-nigh useless. Well, they don't do it *that* often ... and the glibc-common split did save a lot of people from downloading an extra 8 MB or so down 56kb lines ... > > All I'm saying is, if rpm didn't work that way, people would just > >cheerfully ignore the dependencies, then complain that things didn't > >work ... > > Believe me, I'm not arguing that dependencies are a bad thing. I _am_ > arguing that _changing_ the dependency structure mid-release is not > amusing, and that seems to be the case here. Again. Yes, agreed -- sorry. Didn't mean to be rude. I just see a lot of "why can't I update package XXX" questions, usually easy enough ones to fix. I can see the problem here though. :o( > Cheers -d > > > - -- > David Talkington > > PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/0xCA4C11AD.pgp _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
