future of smart

[Richard Hendershot]

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 15:44 -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:

> It really is a problem with packages (there's clearly no reason
> package-1.1 couldn't use dependency-1.0, other than the packager
> explicitly requiring 0.9), so I'm not sure this within Smart's ability
> or scope to address.  


The one thing I wish Smart allowed was to set a channel to disabled only
for the session when using CLI.   I run smart 'smart upgrade --update' a
LOT.  I do that in SSH terminal sessions.  The most problematic (I'm a
Fedora 9 user but this goes back many iterations of Fedora) is ATRPMS.
As you say, probably because I also include some Livna packages.  But
the most direct solution is to temporarily disable livna and atrpms so
the CORE packages can be updated.  Also ran into this a lot with Mono
repos of various stripes (why is it so hard to keep monodevelop current
on fedora?!?!?!?  - but I digress).

The fact that I get these loops is actually a feature.  If Smart were as
incapable as any other PM available (not including Apt, btw) then I'd
not have loops.  I'd have instead, what I had before Smart,
unresolvable updates that could only be resolved by downloading specific
packages, issuing rpm -e (sometimes even with nodeps), etc.

very very glad to have it, no matter what the toolkit  ;)
-- 
Richard Hendershot <rshendershot at mchsi.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.labix.org/pipermail/smart-labix.org/attachments/20080611/47651cad/attachment-0003.htm>