On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:54 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Dan Book wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert <swt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >
> > >> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
> > >
> > > Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
> > >
> > > It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how this
> > is
> > > supposed to work? Or has something improperly obsoleted it?
> >
> > Sounds like it is new expected behavior of dnf:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827398
>
>
> The default clean_requirements_on_remove is still something I turn off
> immediately on any system's dnf.conf. It's come up before[1] that this
> could be presented way better in the dnf UI, it's very confusing.
No, this is not related to clean_requirements_on_remove. As mentioned
upthread, fedora-obsolete-packages now does its job without being installed.
Sorry I was responding to the confusion in the linked bug report which stems from the UI display of that feature.
-Dan
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
