http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503398
User jkupec@novell.com added comment
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503398#c3
Ján Kupec changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
CC| |jkupec@novell.com,
| |visnov@novell.com
Info Provider| |visnov@novell.com
--- Comment #3 from Ján Kupec 2009-05-13 06:55:02 MDT ---
well, this does not look like a bug to me, what you describe is exactly how it
should be.
Could be that some packages are missing important dependencies. As your comment
at https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502984#c3 suggests.
Zypper/solver/whatever could be more verbose about its decisions, yes, but the
result is correct in this case. Should i make this an enahcement for zypper to
tell something like "There are also other updates available, but they cannot be
installed due to a forbidden vendor change."? With a list of such packages,
perhaps? These are all nice things to have (we for sure want the people to be
able to install a hot fix update form OBS as easily as possible) but it's also
a tremendous amount of work to which i believe nobody can commit in near
future.
Currently one needs to 'zypper up/in foo' or put the vendor to trusted vendors
list, in order to cope with such situation (and you're right, zypper is silent
about this). Plus this would not happen to official main and update repos.
=> enhancement + wontfix (for now)?
BTW, this is very much about the planned easy API in libzypp and the amount of
information it (and the satsolver) feeds back to applications (it does not make
sense to code this in zypper). I'm all for giving it a bit higher priority if
it's possible. Stano?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.