On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:51:16 -0700 Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Well, the problem there, what do you mean by 'support'? In this case lots of people use dnf for updates, so IMHO it would be "we will try and keep this working, and fix anything we can, but do understand that there's a low level problem here that something could mess up updates in progress, if you want to be more sure of not hitting problems, use the offline updates in your graphical desktop" > > 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. Much less so. In the server case you have usually ssh, bash and dnf, in the desktop case you have X, possibly wayland, tons of graphics libraries, the terminal application you are using and all it's libraries, and a shell and dnf. There's just a lot more there to possibly crash. kevin
Attachment:
pgpBYtiPxs0ut.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
