On 24 June 2014 11:03, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Am 24.06.2014 11:40, schrieb Florian Weimer: >> On 06/24/2014 11:31 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote: >>> Hopefully you don't write professional software with this kind of >>> attitude. >> >> Please don't try to win arguments by labeling the opposition as >> incompetent. You won't convince anyone, and it contributes to >> making the Fedora mailing lists a hostile place > > well, tell the same the guy he responded to having nothing better > to do than calling people stupid which don't accept regressions > and steps backwards here and on bugzilla > > hopefully some kernel update in the future won't work on his > machine and the third update removes his only bootable one > not for malicious joy but it turns out some people need to > learn it the hard way > > that attitude would be acceptable if we would dicuss about new > protections never existed before - but in fact we are talking > about a proposed replacement of YUM which has these kind of > things for years now and in that context it's just a rgeression > Comment 16 of the Bugzilla suggests that the running kernel is retained during updates in DNF, as it is in Yum. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c16 I don't know if that's correct and it doesn't invalidate any of the arguments about general safety, but apparently update does do something similar to the Yum behaviour (it inverts the meaning of the related setting though). -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
