On 01/02/2014 11:54 AM, Ales Kozumplik wrote:
A question, I found the following on
<http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html>
"dnf erase kernel deletes all packages called kernel
In Yum, the running kernel is spared. There is no reason to keep this in
DNF, the user can always specify concrete versions on the command line,
e.g.:
dnf erase kernel-3.9.4"
So if I issue 'dnf erase kernel' all kernels will be removed, and I have
no kernel anymore? Is that really a good thing? Should we not spare the
running kernel? Or is there some rationale behind this that I am missing?
Lars
Hi Lars,
yes that's the idea. In practice however, a user doesn't type 'dnf erase
-y kernel' by accident and we don't feel the need to protect users who
really know what they are doing from doing so.
IMO, you are plain wrong.
You've never used scripts similar to sth. like this:
rpm -qa ... | grep ... | yum remove -y
and never encountered bugs with such scripts?
IIRC, debian's apt even has blacklists (protected packages) to prevent
critical damages.
It's the same situation
as 'rm -rf /boot' or 'rpm -e --allmatches kernel'.
No. It is not. Think about non-bootable/broken kernels etc.
The kernel is a master piece of a package which must be allowed to be
installed in multiple instances and of which at least the running
instance must not be removed under any circumstances.
Of course, people are
welcome to write specific plugins to achieve something similar to what
Yum used to do.
You don't really want to know what I think about this - It really pisses
me off. You are trying to defend a behavioral regression *you* are
reponsible for onto users.
Ralf
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
