On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 03:21:37PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I agree with that and the kernel removal behavior isn't the only > difference. I mean, how often would one run dnf remove glibc on purpose > and the significant amount of accidental runs of yum that caused serious > problems resulted in yum developers adding some protection against removing > key packages. dnf changing this expected behavior is problem and clearly > this is a design decision which I think needs to revisited. > http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#protected-packages-is-ignored This one is clearly one of those "doomed to repeat history" things in motion. Protected packages was first implemented * as a yum plugin because Seth thought it was kind of crazy and shouldn't be core functionality, but then it proved itself in real use and became built-in. Now, the DNF pages says "Similar functionality can be implemented by a plugin", putting us right back where we were. ** * originally as a feature for BU Linux :) ** well, except that I don't have an intern interested in writing the plugin this time around. Volunteers welcome! -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project Architect -- <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
