dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 04/08/2015 08:41 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> 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).

I vehemently disagree: Users having been seeing the symptoms of bugs.
Now you are lying and cheating, pretending their systems would be OK in 
situations their systems are broken (and potentially vulnerable).

I can not see anything helpful in this behaviour and am not impressed.

> 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.
This is  similiarly stupid.

With the dnf behavioral change
- dnf needs to inform users about the broken packages by default
- dnf now needs an option which does the opposite to --skip-broken
   (--no-skip-broken).

I am very sure you'll see a similiar amount of mails related to broken 
packages as before.

Ralf