yum broken; headers directory missing

[Michael Stenner]

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:41:27AM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
> Michael Stenner wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> You didn't even try to reproduce this, did you? :)

Why should I?  I believe you and the error report is very clear.  I
never called into question the facts of your report, only the language
you used.

> It's not a user level misconfiguration.  The headers directory has
> disappeared from the master download server, and all the mirrors have
> synced up and deleted their copies.  This is a rather serious bug: no
> one will be able to use yum to update their systems until it is fixed.

I attempted to capture that sentiment when I said "it is ABSOLUTELY a
reportable bug".  I'm sorry if that was unclear.

> But don't you worry: it's not yum's fault.  Yum is functioning exactly
> as it should.  

Yes.  In fact, it is.  When an incorrect url is provided, it tells you
and exits.  This IS functioning as it should.

> Users that report "yum update fails" are just mistaken,

No.  "yum update fails" is perfectly accurate.  What you said was 
"yum is broken", which is not accurate.

> and should be publicly mocked until they report the bug against the
> download servers instead. :)

Nobody ever mocked you.  We corrected you.  There was no malice.  We
all get corrected all the time.  It's no big deal.  It is not a
personal attack.

> Whatever.  Honestly, I apologize for putting "yum" in the subject of
> the message (even though I thought I made it clear what was going on
> in the body, and even though that *is* the user-visible impact of the
> bug). 

"yum update fails"
"yum url is incorrect"
"default yum configuration is broken"
"yum repository changed"
"yum headers dir moved"

All of those contain "yum" and are simultaneously accurate.  It is not
the presence of the word "yum" that I don't like.  It is the
incorrectness of the statement about yum: "yum is broken".

> Apparently there's a history here that I don't understand.

Not that I'm aware of.

> Still, someone needs to fix this.

I NEVER suggested that it not get fixed.  I COMPLETELY agree with you
on that.  It is CLEARLY a problem and should ABSOLUTELY be fixed.

					-Michael
-- 
  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