On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote:
> > And really the bottom line is, dnf update is fine the vast majority of > the time, except when it isn't. Failures are somewhere in between a > bug and not at all surprising. And people have been working hard on > solving this for years. Chris, first of all thanks much for posting the links. They basically reinforced my opinion. I have no issue whatsoever with "offline" updates. It is of course a valid approach to a problem. My concern was that the blanket implication about the safety of using DNF within a DE. Even your comment that it is "fine... until it isn't" (which can be said about anything) proves the point. Packagekit... is "safe until it isn't" - refer to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865 which by the way caused me a bunch of grief because on a lark one day I decided to try it out... sucks to be me I guess. If offline updates have a place (and yes I believe they do) then why isn't that functionality built into DNF now? I would assume (and yes, I know what happens when people ASS-U-ME - ;-) ) that it is because the DNF team doesn't believe the risk/benefit ratio is high enough to put it in yet and they believe other features/functionality are more beneficial. That said, they basically already do it with the dnf-system-upgrade plugin; so why not just expand that a bit. Also, while i completely understand that it is much easier to just use a sledgehammer and say "offline upgrades for everything" - we both know that isn't required. Again, there is a place for "offline" updates - and I would like to see that option in DNF - but everything has it's place.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
