Am 05.01.2014 09:23, schrieb Mattia Verga:
Il 05/01/2014 00:13, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
> On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 21:41 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> On 2014-01-04 21:31, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2014 08:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> * yum remove kernel vs dnf remove kernel difference (unfiled? )
>>> I found 976704, closed with 'Resolution: --- → UPSTREAM' in August.
>>> Not sure what that means, but removing all kernels seem a bit odd and
>>> at least the running kernel should be spared, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> <
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976704>
>>>
>>> Lars
>> Hej...
>>
>> Well, a lot of other (most?) folks have the same opinion - have a look
>> in the archives for this thread....
> It's a bit hard to tell, but from the comment it looks like it was
> really closed as 'notabug' rather than 'upstream'.
They really want to make dnf work this way.
This is explained here:
http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-al...
and that is clearly a regression
how likely is that somebody want to delete all kernels include the running one?
"the user can always specify concrete versions on the command line" - yes, at
the same time the user can "rpm -e --nodeps" if he really knwos what he is
doing
the same for:
protected_packages is ignored
DNF drops Yum’s protected_packages configuration option. Generally, DNF lets the user
do what she specified, even have DNF itself removed. Similar functionality can be
implemented by a plugin
"DNF lets the user do what she specified" is nonsense, the system must not
destroy itself
without *explicitly* specified this action via a *non-default* switch