On 3 January 2014 04:32, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Reindl Harald wrote: >> uhm "It has been disabled in Fedora and there has been no real use cases >> indicated" says who and with what real world expierience? look above! > > They clearly haven't looked very far for use cases, indeed. > > Another important use case (and another reason why keepcache=1 should not > only be supported, but IMHO even be the DEFAULT): > * Say an update to NetworkManager or one of its dependencies breaks your > networking. (Maybe it's an unusual configuration that was missed during > testing.) > * Even ignoring the issue of mirrors not keeping old updates (which I > already pointed out earlier in this thread), with networking not working, > you simply CANNOT go to a mirror, directly to Koji etc. to get a > downgrade. The ONLY place to get the old package from is your yum cache. > * If this is not the first update to the package, you will definitely have > the previous (or at least another recent) update cached. > * If this IS the first update to the package, if (like me) you used the > direct yum method to upgrade Fedora (and of course keepcache=1), you have > the GA package cached. I don't know how FedUp handles this, but if it > doesn't keep the cache, it should! > > In that situation, with keepcache=0, the installation is BRICKED! With > keepcache=1, it can be fixed by downgrading the offending package from the > cache (rpm -Uvh --oldpackage). > > Kevin Kofler > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046244 > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Ahmad Samir -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
