[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media

Thu Jun 21 19:33:18 CEST 2012

Op donderdag 21 juni 2012 17:40:51 schreef Thierry Vignaud:
+> On 21 June 2012 17:36, AL13N <alien at rmail.be> wrote:
+> >> A. fetch dependencies only from enabled release/update repositories
+> >> Problems:
+> >>  - patch doesn't exist yet and code complexity is alot higher
+> >>  - if backports are enabled, a dependency fetched from release could
+> >> conflict with other installed (from backports or other). thus the update
+> >> would fail.
+> >> 
+> >> Solutions for this:
+> >>  - this is not cleanly solvable, we would have to remove the backport.
+> > 
+> > [...]
+> > 
+> > In this thread at the moment, I see mostly people having (personal
+> > preference) problems with how i would solve this bug.
+> > 
+> > while they aren't less important, what I would rather see in this thread
+> > is alternative solutions, or how the problem with A can be solved if it
+> > happens.
+> > 
+> > even if both A and B are regarded as bad, I'd even prefer people to say
+> > that B is the lesser evil.
+> > 
+> > complaining on how B is not good for you, doesn't get us anywhere with
+> > this bug.
+> > 
+> > So please, give alternative solutions or state how A is perfectly viable.
+> 
+> You're inversing the roles :-)
+
+inversing roles is good :-)
+
+> You cannot knowly break things just b/c of one need (which btw was
+> managed back @mdv).
+
+well, the situations are a bit different now, we do have supported backports 
+now, and alot of code is now improved.
+
+In any case, i'd like to find out how the above problem was managed @ mdv? 
+perhaps since backports wasn't supported, it was also unsupported? and thus 
+not needing to be managed?
+
+> You're trading one infrastruture enhancement for:
+> - several new usability issues:
+>   o more memory
+>   o slower to compute updates
+
+actually, it would be nice to have some data on this, according to MrsB, some 
+people have marked release as update media, thus alleviating their problem, 
+they didn't think it was a problem.
+
+also, when i read the code, all signs (even comments) pointed to this exact 
+solution (all was marked for searchmedia), and only limited on this one point.
+
+> - breaking people installation by blindly installing all backports along
+> updates if they're ever enabled.
+
+well, as i said before, if we strictly require, it won't break. and it's not 
+blindly at all, only dependencies for updates marked repos.
+
+