Am 05.01.2014 09:23, schrieb Mattia Verga: > > Il 05/01/2014 00:13, Adam Williamson ha scritto: >> On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 21:41 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: >>> On 2014-01-04 21:31, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: >>>> On 01/04/2014 08:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>>>> * yum remove kernel vs dnf remove kernel difference (unfiled? ) >>>> I found 976704, closed with 'Resolution: --- → UPSTREAM' in August. >>>> Not sure what that means, but removing all kernels seem a bit odd and >>>> at least the running kernel should be spared, in my opinion. >>>> >>>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976704> >>>> >>>> Lars >>> Hej... >>> >>> Well, a lot of other (most?) folks have the same opinion - have a look >>> in the archives for this thread.... >> It's a bit hard to tell, but from the comment it looks like it was >> really closed as 'notabug' rather than 'upstream'. > They really want to make dnf work this way. > This is explained here: > http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel and that is clearly a regression how likely is that somebody want to delete all kernels include the running one? "the user can always specify concrete versions on the command line" - yes, at the same time the user can "rpm -e --nodeps" if he really knwos what he is doing the same for: > protected_packages is ignored > DNF drops Yum’s protected_packages configuration option. Generally, DNF lets the user > do what she specified, even have DNF itself removed. Similar functionality can be > implemented by a plugin "DNF lets the user do what she specified" is nonsense, the system must not destroy itself without *explicitly* specified this action via a *non-default* switch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
