Yum dependency resolving & remove_leaf_only

[Eric H. Christensen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 02:31:37PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 03:13:41 +0800,
>   P J P <pj.pandit at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> >   No, it does not. If yum is protecting users from un-installing a package which could render the whole system unusable or unresponsive, what remains is not-so important packages, which pull in 100 other _unrelated_ packages to the list of packages to be removed. And invariably user is left with no choice but to type - 'N'; unable to remove a package.
> 
> They aren't unrelated.

I believe he is assuming that xchat has a direct relationship with bluez which, I'm guessing here as I haven't checked, probably isn't the case.  Because bluez affects something that xchat depends on xchat is getting thrown into the pile of things that will break without bluez.  Dependencies aren't always 1:1...

- -- Eric

- --------------------------------------------------
Eric "Sparks" Christensen
Fedora Project

sparks at fedoraproject.org - sparks at redhat.com
097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2  E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1
- --------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=yRrn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----