On 24 June 2014 12:51, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 > [root@rawhide ~]# dnf remove kernel > Failed loading plugin: copr > Dependencies resolved. > I meant to say I don't know for sure because I don't have a system with DNF to try it on. However I said 'update' and not 'remove', which I realise is the main point in this whole debate, but the 'running kernel preserved against updates' argument is not about 'remove'. -- 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
