Re: another dnf kernel issue?
- Original Message - > From: "Radek Holy" > To: "James Antill" > Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:53:50 PM > Subject: Re: another dnf kernel issue? > > - Original Message - > > From: "James Antill" > > To: "Radek Holy" > > Cc: ndbeck...@gmail.com, "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > > > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:28:44 PM > > Subject: Re: another dnf kernel issue? > > > > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 04:01 -0500, Radek Holy wrote: > > > > > TBH, I don't know whether we should extend the forms of package > > > specifications to support your case. The current behaviour seems to be > > > safer to me. I mean, if we improve it, user wouldn't be able to query > > > just package names as easily as now. > > > > Safer? I can't think how. > > FWIW, in yum we did it the other way and added install-n, remove-n for > > just operating on the names of packages. Seemed less confusing if you > > want to force it, and did what people expected. YMMV. > > With the current syntax, you can limit the globs to package names and still > you can append version or architecture specifications (globs or not). So > there is lower probability that you select packages that you didn't want to > select (e.g. packages containing numbers in their name). That's why I > consider it safer. > > So with our syntax you can more easily express yourself and so far I don't > know about anything that can be expressed via YUM's globs but not via DNF's. > And also we don't need yet another command. > > Anyway, I'm not trying to defend the current DNF syntax. This is just my > opinion. And TBH I didn't think about it too much. I don't think this > discussion is very much needed. Feel free to correct me and explain me why this issue is important. It's definitely possible that I've missed something. -- Radek Holý Associate Software Engineer Software Management Team Red Hat Czech -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: another dnf kernel issue?
- Original Message - > From: "James Antill" > To: "Radek Holy" > Cc: ndbeck...@gmail.com, "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:28:44 PM > Subject: Re: another dnf kernel issue? > > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 04:01 -0500, Radek Holy wrote: > > > TBH, I don't know whether we should extend the forms of package > > specifications to support your case. The current behaviour seems to be > > safer to me. I mean, if we improve it, user wouldn't be able to query > > just package names as easily as now. > > Safer? I can't think how. > FWIW, in yum we did it the other way and added install-n, remove-n for > just operating on the names of packages. Seemed less confusing if you > want to force it, and did what people expected. YMMV. With the current syntax, you can limit the globs to package names and still you can append version or architecture specifications (globs or not). So there is lower probability that you select packages that you didn't want to select (e.g. packages containing numbers in their name). That's why I consider it safer. So with our syntax you can more easily express yourself and so far I don't know about anything that can be expressed via YUM's globs but not via DNF's. And also we don't need yet another command. Anyway, I'm not trying to defend the current DNF syntax. This is just my opinion. And TBH I didn't think about it too much. I don't think this discussion is very much needed. -- Radek Holý Associate Software Engineer Software Management Team Red Hat Czech -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: another dnf kernel issue?
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 04:01 -0500, Radek Holy wrote: > TBH, I don't know whether we should extend the forms of package > specifications to support your case. The current behaviour seems to be > safer to me. I mean, if we improve it, user wouldn't be able to query > just package names as easily as now. Safer? I can't think how. FWIW, in yum we did it the other way and added install-n, remove-n for just operating on the names of packages. Seemed less confusing if you want to force it, and did what people expected. YMMV. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: another dnf kernel issue?
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015, Radek Holy wrote: > > Does "sudo dnf remove kernel*-3.18.3*" work for you? > > From the DNF's persepective ( > http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/command_ref.html#specifying-packages), > your specification is in the form "name" (because of the missing dash) and > there is no package with a name matching "kernel*3.18.3*". Also in the > second query, it is assumed that the name must match "kernel*3.18.3". > > TBH, I don't know whether we should extend the forms of package > specifications to support your case. The current behaviour seems to be > safer to me. I mean, if we improve it, user wouldn't be able to query just > package names as easily as now. > -- > Radek Holý > Associate Software Engineer > Software Management Team > Red Hat Czech Days ago when I tried to install/remove 7000+ packages from half-completed downloading in Neal's way, it didn't work at all. But without asterisk in the command, things could be harder once there are numerous RPMs being taken. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: another dnf kernel issue?
- Original Message - > From: "Neal Becker" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Monday, February 9, 2015 3:08:17 PM > Subject: another dnf kernel issue? > > [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo dnf remove kernel*3.18.3* > [sudo] password for nbecker: > No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3* > Error: No packages marked for removal. > [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo dnf remove kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 > No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 > Error: No packages marked for removal. > [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo yum remove kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 > Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, merge-conf, versionlock > Repodata is over 2 weeks old. Install yum-cron? Or run: yum makecache fast > Resolving Dependencies > --> Running transaction check > ---> Package kernel-core.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased > ---> Package kernel-modules.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased > ---> Package kernel-modules-extra.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased > --> Finished Dependency Resolution Does "sudo dnf remove kernel*-3.18.3*" work for you? From the DNF's persepective (http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/command_ref.html#specifying-packages), your specification is in the form "name" (because of the missing dash) and there is no package with a name matching "kernel*3.18.3*". Also in the second query, it is assumed that the name must match "kernel*3.18.3". TBH, I don't know whether we should extend the forms of package specifications to support your case. The current behaviour seems to be safer to me. I mean, if we improve it, user wouldn't be able to query just package names as easily as now. -- Radek Holý Associate Software Engineer Software Management Team Red Hat Czech -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: another dnf kernel issue?
Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 09.02.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Neal Becker: >> [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo dnf remove kernel*3.18.3* >> [sudo] password for nbecker: >> No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3* >> Error: No packages marked for removal. >> [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo dnf remove kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 >> No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 >> Error: No packages marked for removal. >> [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo yum remove kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 >> Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, merge-conf, versionlock >> Repodata is over 2 weeks old. Install yum-cron? Or run: yum makecache fast >> Resolving Dependencies >> --> Running transaction check >> ---> Package kernel-core.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased >> ---> Package kernel-modules.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased >> ---> Package kernel-modules-extra.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased >> --> Finished Dependency Resolution > > you input is plain wrong > > you need to escape * by \* because otherwise you relie on luck and > undefined behavior depending in which directory your shell is You didn't look very closely. If bash had expanded the '*', there wouldn't be the message: No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 And note that yum worked. -- -- Those who don't understand recursion are doomed to repeat it -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: another dnf kernel issue?
Am 09.02.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Neal Becker: [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo dnf remove kernel*3.18.3* [sudo] password for nbecker: No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3* Error: No packages marked for removal. [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo dnf remove kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 Error: No packages marked for removal. [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo yum remove kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, merge-conf, versionlock Repodata is over 2 weeks old. Install yum-cron? Or run: yum makecache fast Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package kernel-core.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased ---> Package kernel-modules.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased ---> Package kernel-modules-extra.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased --> Finished Dependency Resolution you input is plain wrong you need to escape * by \* because otherwise you relie on luck and undefined behavior depending in which directory your shell is signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
another dnf kernel issue?
[nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo dnf remove kernel*3.18.3* [sudo] password for nbecker: No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3* Error: No packages marked for removal. [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo dnf remove kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 No match for argument: kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 Error: No packages marked for removal. [nbecker@nbecker1 ~]$ sudo yum remove kernel*3.18.3-201.fc21 Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, merge-conf, versionlock Repodata is over 2 weeks old. Install yum-cron? Or run: yum makecache fast Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package kernel-core.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased ---> Package kernel-modules.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased ---> Package kernel-modules-extra.x86_64 0:3.18.3-201.fc21 will be erased --> Finished Dependency Resolution -- -- Those who don't understand recursion are doomed to repeat it -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
