dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum

[Jan Zelený]

On 8. 4. 2015 at 10:26:51, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 08.04.2015 um 08:41 schrieb 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).
> 
> well, check out how many bugs where filed for the correct component
> 
> that default don't solve any problem, it's just put the head in the sand
> and burry it
> 
> > 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
> the world don't work that way
> 
> *nobody* even not myself would call "dnf check-update" after "dnf
> upgrade" installed updates and did not complain about anything

You are right, people use it the other way - we have had reports stating that 
dnf check-update shows packages that dnf upgrade doesn't select. In other 
words, the information about broken updates is still available to the user.

Thanks
Jan