Re: removable setup rpm?!

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Petr Stodulka <pstodulk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 18.8.2017 14:18, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:10:16 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:43:28 +0200, Petr Stodulka wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I found now that the setup rpm is removable from the system,
>>>>
>>>> Clarify, please. What exactly have you found out? Have you found an update
>>>> case where one of the package updater tools removed it actually?
>>>>
>>>>   $ rpm -q --whatrequires setup
>>>>   rpcbind-0.2.4-7.rc2.fc26.x86_64
>>>>   shadow-utils-4.3.1-3.fc26.x86_64
>>>>
>
>   # dnf remove setup
>
> I am not talking about update, I am talking about situation that you can break completely
> your system by removing of packages, that should not be removable. The logic why someone
> would want to remove such packages it is not relevant here. You shouldn't be able to do that.
> That's the point.
>
>>>> Whatever you've done, you would need to remove more packages before
>>>> you could remove "setup".
>>>>
>>>> In case a tool like "dnf" has done it, I'd like to see the details,
>>>> particularly the packages DNF used to replace setup and shadow-utils.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't replace it with anything, it just considers it okay to
>>> remove from the system, because we don't have any protected packages
>>> that depend on setup.
>>
>> That doesn't make sense [yet]. It cannot remove it without breaking
>> existing dependencies. It would need to remove shadow-utils, too, for
>> example.
>
> Obiously you are able to remove shadow-utils "without troubles" too. That's just point
> that the list of protected packages should be bigger. IMHO, packages that are crucial
> for basic run of the system shouldn't be removable.
>

Our basesystem package seems to be quite neglected.

For comparison, here's Mageia's basesystem:
http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/basesystem/current/SPECS/basesystem.spec?view=markup

We should probably consider filling out the basesystem package more
and making it so that it is a protected package.

That package isn't supposed to get removed on a Fedora system anyway.

-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux