On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:25:48AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote: > Not sure if there's a good fix to this. We'd either limit people to > only being able to get rid of kernel-drivers with some dancing around > with different kernel versions and some rebooting, etc. Or we allow > people to remove the kernel-drivers of the running kernel which > defeats the purpose of the protection. #leSigh I think the first is preferable; the main case where you get a kernel without the drivers package is when you're building something intended to be small, and going downwards isn't the way to really do that. > Oh (#2), and here, dnf actually differs from yum. dnf protects *none* > of the packages. So that's definitely a bug and I'll report it once we > know exactly what behavior we want (so that yum and dnf will do the > same thing). Apparently this is by design in dnf; it's one of the features they didn't see as valuable. Which is funny to me because that was the case with yum initially too (we wrote it as a plugin for that reason) but over time it became a core feature). -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
