Latest updates are missing a dependency

[Bill Davidsen]

Rex Dieter wrote:
> Tom Horsley wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:56:30 -0500
>> Rex Dieter wrote:
>>
>>> OK, so a broken dep is found somewhere, now what?  Stop the presses,
>>> manually find what is broke, restart updates-push from the beginning?  
>>> Not fun.
>> But what happens now is the presses DON'T stop, but just spew
>> the broken updates to the world. And presumably the whole push-updates
>> process still has to happen again to get the fix pushed to the
>> world. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the "stop
>> the presses" model to postpone things till the updates are
>> in a sane state again.
> 
> And, if this batch of updates included critical (security or otherwise) 
> fixes, that wouldn't influence your opinion?
> 
I don't buy breaking the machine to protect it as a security model. But to turn 
the question around, should critical changes be pushed as a separate task? If 
there is something critical, which happens rarely, should that go out by itself, 
and let other changes wait?

The notification tool offers the option of security updates only, so clearly 
some thought has been given to getting the important stuff visible and available 
without other updates.

I can't tell if that would be relatively easy, but since the critical stuff is 
identified now, pushing that separately might be possible, and certainly desirable.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot