On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 20:09 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 16.03.2010 17:42, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 01:45:33PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> There are so many developers around on this list that know: reporting
>> bugs is the right way to get problems fixed and fixing things is way
>> better than posting workarounds to public places for various reasons --
>> nevertheless nobody filed a bug yet afaics :-/
> Imho it was not that obvious that there is a bug present, because these
> kind of delays are usual with RPMFusion, because the repos are not
> directly synced.
That IMHO something that needs fixing on the Fedora side (e.g. in yum)
But I lost energy driving a solution forward.
I'm not sure what you want us to do, the main problem is that splitting
a DB of packages and then stitching it back together doesn't work 100%
of the time ... this isn't us being stupid:
...yum repo DBs are AP and not C.
Skip-broken helps in all cases apart from file conflicts, which is a
packaging bug. Your idea of "timed skip-broken by default" doesn't work
because we don't have a "date package was released" ... although PK
currently does skip-broken by default, all the time.
> E.g. I just expected it to work within some days and if
> it did not, then I would have thought there might be something wrong.
Well, there were a few cases in the past where problems like this one
persisted for a few days because everybody thought like you outline :-/
But I have no solution for that apart from "if in a doubt file a bug" :-(
Rpmfusion can run auto QA like tests on rpmfusion and Fedora (I don't
think we can legally do the same ... but I'm not sure). Finding the file
conflicts automatically is harder (you need to download all the rpms),
and it's not fast, but it's possible (Seth has a script, IIRC).
James Antill - james(a)fedoraproject.org