Am 24.06.2014 12:56, schrieb Ian Malone: > 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) don't get me wrong, but instead speculate you could try it out and see that it would get removed and until yesterday the DNF developers statet that they won't protect anything which leaded to my first "is DNF ready to replace YUM" thread at the begin of this year that was the same state before the kernel-split on Rawhide happened which is a very recent change to keep virtualized guests tiny currently the implementation state is unchanged, what get better is a common sense that it would be useful to protect expect few people which fight against protections while missing arguments https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/444565.html [root@rawhide ~]# dnf remove kernel Failed loading plugin: copr Dependencies resolved. =============================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size =============================================================================================================================== Removing: kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc1.git4.1.fc21 @System 41 M Transaction Summary =============================================================================================================================== Remove 1 Package Installed size: 41 M Is this ok [y/N]: n Exiting on user Command [root@rawhide ~]# yum remove kernel Skipping the running kernel: kernel-core-3.16.0-0.rc1.git4.1.fc21.x86_64 No Packages marked for removal
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
