dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum

[Jan Zelený]

On 7. 4. 2015 at 17:53:42, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 04/07/2015 05:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:38:57 -0500
> > 
> > Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:22:25 -0300,
> >> 
> >>    Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> >> 
> >> <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>   I had also switched back to yum in rawhide due to --skip-broken,
> >>> 
> >>> and
> >>> in a few updates not even needing it (I would first see what is
> >>> broken, and if not something "vital", use --skip-broken), while dnf
> >>> would just fail with cryptic messages. I can keep up if kde or gnome
> >>> is broken, or some other stuff that does not prevent boot and a
> >>> functional system.
> >> 
> >> dnf really does need --skip-broken like support if it is to replace
> >> yum. yum can be a lot faster than the needed work around to get dnf
> >> to work equivalently. I am considering going back to yum in rawhide
> >> rather than continuig to test dnf in rawhide because of this issue.
> > 
> > dnf's default behavior is like yum with --skip-broken already.
> 
> WHAT?
> 
> --skip-broken is a band-aid to work around packaging mistakes and bugs
> and NOT be the default.
> 
> IMO, this kind of behavior is not helpful and therefore should be reverted.

This behavior is actually helpful, as it doesn't bother users with a bunch of 
broken deps messages they usually don't fully understand (check out how many 
of these bugs were filed against yum over the years).

Putting the opinion of myself and the dnf team aside, I'd like to point out 
that the information you want is still available - dnf check-update will show 
you all the updates, even those that have broken deps. Running this command 
right after dnf upgrade will list you those that could not be installed.

Thanks
Jan