On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 18:14 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 21:59 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 21:03 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > > When running "yum --skip-broken update" and getting this message
> > > (currently in
> > > Rawhide), should it always
seth vidal fedoraproject.org> writes:
> > Depends what you mean. If you mean 'is it a bug in yum', no. There are
> > some types of dependency issues that can't really sensibly be resolved
> > by ignoring some updates. It's clearly a bug in *something*, though. You
> > should treat each case indiv
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 21:59 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 21:03 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > When running "yum --skip-broken update" and getting this message (currently
> > in
> > Rawhide), should it always be considered a bug and reported?
>
> Depends what you mean. I
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 21:03 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> When running "yum --skip-broken update" and getting this message (currently in
> Rawhide), should it always be considered a bug and reported?
Depends what you mean. If you mean 'is it a bug in yum', no. There are
some types of dependency i
When running "yum --skip-broken update" and getting this message (currently in
Rawhide), should it always be considered a bug and reported? Normally, I can get
some packages to update by attempting to update just a subset of them (say one
at a time). Should I always try to update as many packages a
