On 28 May 2016 16:54, "Gerald B. Cox" <gbcox@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:20 PM, James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not entirely certain of the answer to that, though it should be quick to test when I get to a machine later.
>>
>> But in terms of efficiencies reinstall does a full reinstall of the package, including download and and scripts. Doing mark installed just tells dnf what the world is meant to look like.
>
>
> I checked with "dnf autoremove" and a re-install appears to mark it correctly. I subsequently following the instructions
> in the F24 release notes.
>
> The reason I had done "dnf reinstall" was that I knew that command and there were no instructions in the bug report
> on how to fix the problem. When someone was kind enough to reply here with the link to the F24 release notes, which had the
> instructions, I put them in the bug report to give people a better chance to find them. Most likely, you aren't going to
> be looking at F24 release notes, until you plan on upgrading to F24. That doesn't help the people who are currently affected
> by this using F23.
>
>
Huh? The bug has multiple comments referring to dnf mark install to set a package to user installed (eg comment 4) and the actual bug text says to call dnf mark install ...
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
