yum broken; headers directory missing

Michael Stenner mstenner at ece.arizona.edu
Sun Mar 28 17:06:10 UTC 2004

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 08:44:48AM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
> To expand the elided English in my subject:
>   Yum [has been] broken [because the] header directory [is] missing
> Are you OK with that verb tense?

I find that a bit like saying "my car is broken because I tried to use
the wrong key".  In this case, your "car [-based transportation
system]" is indeed not getting you where you need to go :)

> Seriously: "yum" might be your code, but it's also an update system
> most of us rely on to get new stuff from the download servers.  If the
> *system* is broken, we should be able to submit bug reports against
> "[the] yum [update system]" without worrying about hurting the
> feelings of individual developers. :)

Well, it's not just our feelings :)  When people look through the
archives of a mailing list and see 20 different threads with
variations on the subject "yum is broken" or "bug in yum", etc, one
can (understandably) get the impression that yum is buggy or prone to
failure.  If the problems really are "somebody put the wrong url in
their config file" then that's a different matter entirely.

I guess what I'm saying is that "broken" and "misconfigured" have very
different connotations (to me, at least).  If this url appeared in the
shipped yum package, then it is ABSOLUTELY a reportable bug.  I'm only
saying that the language leads some be believe you're reporting a
different bug (the yum executable is faulty) than you're really
reporting (the mirror changed).

  Michael D. Stenner                            mstenner at ece.arizona.edu
  ECE Department, the University of Arizona                 520-626-1619
  1230 E. Speedway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721-0104                 ECE 524G

More information about the test mailing list