On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 01:28:19PM GMT, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 15:41 -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > > On 5/2/24 14:34, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > > While I follow the philosophy of updating > > > regularly, there are likely some who install Fnn, and > > > never update, and then would expect an update to > > > Fnn+2 to work without issue(s). > > > -- > > > > The CLI update strongly suggests doing 'dnf update --refresh' before > > system-upgrade. It doesn't require it though. > > > > I always thought it's an odd workflow; why doesn't it just force it? > > While it might take a long while to complete on a stale system, it's > > recommended anyway, isn't it? > > I would actually hugely prefer we amend that to say `dnf --refresh > offline-upgrade download; dnf offline-upgrade reboot` or so. It's a > footgun as it stands. Perhaps the dnf5 version could be just: dnf offline-upgrade (and it automatically does --refresh and it downloads and then says "packages downloaded, ok to reboot into the upgrade now? y/n)" ? And if you pass it 'download' or 'reboot' it only does those steps? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
