https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163737 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163737#c5 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Kang <songchuan.kang@suse.com> --- (In reply to Nathaniel Graham from comment #4)

It's unfortunate that the provider and user of the API have such different expectations.

For what it's worth, I mildly lean toward Richard Hughes' position from a UX perspective; users of a GUI updater app will, 9 times out of 10, not know what do to do resolve packaging conflicts requiring interactivity anyway. I think it would indeed be best to either do the most obviously correct thing, or at least the most non-dangerous thing. The point that requiring inactivity breaks unattended updates is also a valid one.

Relatedly: in my experience on Tumbleweed, cases where interactivity was required during an update were caused by instances of broken packaging, most commonly de-sync between the Packman repo and the main repo. I've since moved to Fedora KDE with the RPMFusion repo (which serves a similar function to the Packman repo in openSUSE land), and I have not once experienced the kind of repo de-sync problems that required manual interactivity there, or in fact any kind of broken packaging issues at all, ever. So it also seems possible to minimize the condition causing this requirement in the first place, at least. And from a user perspective, that's the best solution.

I do agree. There is definitely room to improve at openSUSE on how to properly distribute software/packages in various repositories, so that such issues can be minimized. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.