On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 16:16 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 01/09/2014 01:58 PM, Ian Malone wrote: > > Latest installed is almost exactly not what you want, I've had plenty > > (where plenty in this case is probably >5) of cases where a kernel > > update broke something, in quite a few of those cases to a state where > > the system wouldn't boot. If the most recent one is retained then > > you've still got a kernel, but not one that will actually run. With > > current behaviour I can still let my system update until a fix appears > > because I know it won't remove the good kernel. If updates can remove > > the running kernel then you have to watch each one carefully. > Right, so if you run into a situation where you need to run an old > kernel-0.99, you'd protect it > with /etc/yum/protected.d/kernel-0.99.conf , assuming that yum allows > specifying package version as well as the name. > > By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd > and running kernel'. I don't have a system to try it on, so I just > hope that one can't delete their dependencies either (glibc? what > else?). No, you can't. Any operation that results in the removal of a protected package is rejected. > I think you can still brick the system with careless yum erases: for > instance, deleting grub. Ooh, fun experiment. Let's see. yum happily lets me remove grub2, but I don't think it breaks boot: /boot/grub2/grub.cfg still exists after the removal, and it won't have deleted the copy in the MBR. I'll see what happens when I reboot. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
