One option smart needs to conquer the world

[Zach Garner]

> That's a crazy world. One of the reasons I wrote Smart was to avoid
> explosion when merely downgrading a package would fix the transaction.
> As a user (perhaps a non-conventional one), I always hated having to
> figure out why the transaction wouldn't work myself.
>
> Is that what users want?  Not peforming an operation at all rather than
> being *ASKED* to downgrade a package?  If that's the case, I'll
> implement the flag in Smart that disables that support (and perhaps
> rename the project...).

Maybe I'm being mis-understood. I definitely think this is better. By
default, downgrade a package if it makes everything else happy.

The other part of my thinking is that, what if I know I don't want to
downgrade anything, and would prefer to tell smart to upgrade/install
what it can so long as it doesn't downgrade something else. This comes
down to "give the user the ability to express what he/she wants"

Primarily, I was just trying to suggest a compromise. If the Fedora
people are freaking out over the ability of smart to downgrade a
package, then let them have the option of disabling it. The fedora
people would still get a better tool, but they have the ability to
alter the default behavior. To me this is no different than every
distribution out there customizing the default behaviors of everything
from KDE to vi to do what they think is best for their users.