Adam Williamson writes:
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 23:54 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > * As a general workaround for this type of crashes, we need a > > complete-transaction command in DNF – please add your voices to: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091702 > > – and not the sledgehammer approach of doing all updates offline. > > CLOSED/WONTFIX since 2014. No comment. Except there is a comment. This is what Ales wrote when closing the bug: "Closign this as WONTFIX with a vote, i.e. once enough people are CCed in the bug, we will see about adding this." IOW, he didn't exactly mean WONTFIX. So, if you want that feature added...CC yourself.
That's fair enough.But I'm still waiting for a logical explanation why setsid() plus sigaction() for selected signal won't be, at least, an interim fix, insofar as preventing a failed install due to an X crashing for some reason, due to a bad scriptlet, or something.
The only proposed explanation is that you still won't immediately know if the transaction is still running or not; without a clear explanation why ps(1) will be insufficient to make that determination. And, of course, implicit in that argument is that setsid()+sigaction() *will* be sufficient and that's just a different problem to solve. But just because the second problem needs a different solution doesn't mean that the first problem cannot be solved.
Attachment:
pgpSrI062AjmJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
