On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/04/2016 12:06 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > > > On Oct 4, 2016 8:52 AM, "Adam Williamson" <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > >> > >> Recently several reports of people getting 'duplicated packages' and > >> 'kernel updates not working' have come through to us in QA from Fedora > >> 24 users. I managed to get one reporter to explain more specifically > >> what happened, and it sounds a lot like what's happening is that > >> something in the 'dnf update' process can cause a GNOME or X crash, > >> possibly depending on hardware or package set installed. When that > >> happens, the update process is killed and does not complete cleanly, > >> which is why you get 'duplicated packages' and other odd results. > > > > How hard would it be to make dnf do the rpm transaction inside a proper > > system-level service (transient or otherwise)? This would greatly increase > > robustness against desktop crashes, ssh connection loss, KillUserProcs, and > > other damaging goofs. > > That seems like a waste of effort, considering we have the offline updates > process which just boots into a special, minimalist environment with almost > nothing but the updater running. > > By that standard, why do we support dnf at all? $ sudo dnf upgrade Error: dnf upgrade is dangerous. Use PackageKit instead and reboot when asked. I, for one, *like* not rebooting, and I'm perfectly capable of rebooting manually if stuff breaks. As far as I know, Fedora considers plain ol' dnf to be supported. For server use, I'm not convinced that the offline update mechanism is supported (at the very least, I have no idea how to trigger it), and servers have the same issue. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
