Fedora Core 4
seth vidal
skvidal at phy.duke.edu
Thu Jan 20 03:05:34 UTC 2005
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 03:48 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:54:49 +0100, Ralf Ertzinger
> > <fedora-devel at camperquake.de> wrote:
> > > I am running rawhide with smart. Enabled repos are fc-devel at 0, freshrpms at 0,
> > > dag at -5 newrpms at -5, atrpms-stable at -10, atrpms-good at -10, atrpms-bleeding at -20.
> > >
> > > It's heaven.
> >
> > Maybe to you... but i have sincere doubts that using smart is helping
> > to identify real packaging problems that exist. Has smart helped you
> > identify and report any rawhide packaging bugs?
>
> I don't think smart is intended to be a tool to identify real packaging
> problems. But there's a nice option that prints all unsatisfied
> dependencies. And I hope we can extend that dialog with more details of
> problems.
>
> In fact this dialog has helped Dries and me to improve our repository and
> fix a number of issues 3 days after Smart was released. Smart was also
> able to tell what old packages were still available that had issues we
> already fixed.
>
> Apart from that, I don't think it's good behaviour to bail out if there is
> a packaging problem. People may miss important updates just because
> somewhere, someone made a mistake. It could even be due to a mirror
> inconsistency, not something that can be fixed by a packager anyway.
>
I think the situation where it exits with all the problems listed is
better than cheerily moving along and seemingly finishing completely
even though not all updates have been applied.
-sv
More information about the devel
mailing list