On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:33 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: > On the other hand, I think you need to talk to the yum developers > too. Since there is no good reason for blocking all updates if one > dependency is missing.
I always wanted to ask you what are your guesses on why Seth behaves in such a way? I have followed one of your bug reports on this matter and I would say that it leaves a bad impression on the third parties. The "notabug, fix the repo" claims are childish at very least. Actually one of the repositories *might* break due to the various reasons, but this shouldn't block the updates from the healthy repos. A well-thought of package manager should still react in a sane way instead of possibly blocking critical updates coming from the working repo. Is there some technical reasons of not fixing the dependency resolution code, do they reject patches or have another view of the problem, did you actually met him offline? It's just over my head... -- Sincerely yours, Yury V. Zaytsev _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
