On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: >>> I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected >>> packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check >>> the man page. It says: >>> >>> protected_packages This is a list of packages that yum should >>> never completely remove. They are protected via Obsoletes as >>> well as user/plugin removals. >>> >>> The default is: yum glob:/etc/yum/protected.d/*.conf So any >>> packages which should be protected can do so by including a file >>> in /etc/yum/protected.d with their package name in it. >>> >>> Also if this configuration is set to anything, then yum will >>> protect the package corresponding to the running version of the >>> kernel. >> >> While documented, I do find this last bit of behavior extremely odd and >> non-intuitive. (And hardcoded, no less.) > > There should just be a separate protect_running_kernel boolean option, which > would default to the above odd behavior for compatibility if not set (but > explicitly setting it to either 1 or 0 would override that either way).
Can't the kernel package itself do that ? I'm thinking about the %preun section (maybe %pretrans ?) where the package would know it's being removed, and could find out whether it's the running kernel. One might also want to build a distribution on top of yum/rpm but choose a different name for the kernel package like "linux" or "linux-kernel". Dridi > Kevin Kofler > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
