One option smart needs to conquer the world

[seth vidal]

On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 18:00 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> You assume a perfect world, and ther eis no perfect reposititory and
> there will never be one. You know that, you've seen the breakage of
> Fedora *update* repos. And if you lay so much weigh on security
> updates then a depsolver should do its best to extract at least the
> non messed up packages from the updates, right?

Not exactly. I think that erroring well and warning the user
appropriately is the most correct action. It is the sysadmin's job to
make sure the repositories are correct. The tool should warn about those
problems not simply try to gloss over them.

> > > Another depsolver would say: No, I won't upgrade bar to version 2
> > > because foo requires bar = 1. So as long as the repo is broken that
> > > way, non-smart depsolvers will not be able to render your system
> > > secure. and it's not an academic example, it happened very often
> > > during early FC4 release, where there was a flurry of updates in the
> > > first weeks, and it will happen again with FC5.
> > 
> > And the issue of downgrading into oblivion could occur as well. It's not
> > an academic example, either.
> 
> OK, where is the real-life example?

When a downgrade could walk you into a security issue? Look at any of
the security updates and think about what happens if you downgrade and
don't know any better.




> So, you're admiting to be FUDding, heh? ;) I'm not scaring away people
> from yum, the arguments that are layed down here is how yum
> users/developers try to FUD out smart, apt and the like (yep, I've
> been around to remember the yum vs apt fud war).

I don't remember laying down any FUD. I remember having concerns about
various programs and believing I had a solution that I thought was
functional given my perspective. From what I've seen a large number of
folks agree with me.
Do I believe I have the only valid perspective? No. Does it matter to me
that other people disagree with me? I take their opinions into account.
I consider them. That doesn't mean I will allow their opinions to
necessarily overwhelm my own but it does mean it's not ignored.

You seem to have established this odd dichotomy that just doesn't exist.
It's not "Us" vs "Them" it's just "Us" and we all seem to have slightly
different perspectives on the world.

The only thing I've read in this thread from you is messages that allege
a lot of behavior from yum developers that I've just not seen.


> 
> > It seems like we have two solutions to a similar problem and two
> > programs have taken different paths.
> > 
> > I really don't  see the conflict here at all.
> 
> So, you don't see any issues in smart's handling and would welcome it
> aboard Fedora Core (with a test time in Extras)? May I quote that? ;)

I don't think two depsolvers in core is a good idea and I know that
fedora core developers agree with me about that. The only thing limiting
Smart from being in extras is it being hung up on the approval step,
iirc. 

I don't understand why you feel the need to talk about 'quoting'. From
what I've seen so far you seem rather driven to get something out of me
you'll not find.

-sv