On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Alan Cox wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 02:55:05PM -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote: >>> >>> In anything from a barebones server to a decked out desktop, what is >>> the harm in preventing yum -y from removing any part of @core??? >>> >>> Come on, provide real reasons why this shouldn't be done. >> >> Well one comparison here is perhaps fsck which has a -y option which means >> "go do it whatever" but also has a "-a" option meaning "don't ask me >> unless >> its something scary or destructive" > > in the fsck world defining 'scary and destructive' is probably easier than > in pkg mgmt. > > Not the least of which is 'updating glibc' scary and destructive? what about > removing an old kernel? I see shed colors. Again, one real world reason Fedora should not put in this simple method of system preservation in case of an un-intended "yum -y"... And please, no more "but we can shoot ourselves in the foot sooo many other ways" arguments. jerry -- Store in cool, dry place. Rotate stock. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
