Felix Miata: > [mc-4.8.18 has been broken since release, so I locked 4.8.17] > > # grep RETT /etc/os-release > PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 26 (Twenty Six)" > # dnf versionlock list > Last metadata expiration check: 1:33:30 ago on Thu Mar 23 16:44:17 2017 EDT. > mc-1:4.8.17-2.fc25.* > # dnf list mc > Last metadata expiration check: 1:33:33 ago on Thu Mar 23 16:44:17 2017 EDT. > Installed Packages > mc.x86_64 1:4.8.17-2.fc25 @System > # dnf check-update mc > Last metadata expiration check: 1:33:35 ago on Thu Mar 23 16:44:17 2017 EDT. > # > # dnf versionlock delete mc > Last metadata expiration check: 1:41:52 ago on Thu Mar 23 16:44:17 2017 EDT. > Deleting versionlock for: mc-1:4.8.17-2.fc25.* > # dnf list mc > Last metadata expiration check: 1:41:58 ago on Thu Mar 23 16:44:17 2017 EDT. > Installed Packages > mc.x86_64 1:4.8.17-2.fc25 @System > Available Packages > mc.x86_64 1:4.8.18-4.fc26 fedora > # dnf check-update mc > Last metadata expiration check: 1:42:08 ago on Thu Mar 23 16:44:17 2017 EDT. > mc.x86_64 1:4.8.18-4.fc26 fedora > # > > How is one expected to discover via dnf when (18 day old) 4.8.19 > finally becomes available and time to delete the lock has arrived? > Is this a bug in the versionlock plugin? DNF itself? Expected > behavior? If you locked 4.8.17 then dnf ignores all other versions. That's how versionlock is supposed to work, i.e. expected behavior. If you want to ignore broken version it's better to put just this one to exclude. -- Michael Mráka System Management Engineering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
