On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:20:34 -0500, Zach Villers wrote:
> Anything about that in /var/log/dnf*?
>
Yes - here is a grep of "kernel" from /var/log/dnf - you can see the
kernels that were removed in the transaction -
http://paste.fedoraproject.org/298642/
Don't use grep for tasks like that. It cuts off context.
There are multiple log files for "dnf". They would clearly show if
any kernel packages have been removed. I doubt that the behaviour for
an increased installonly_limit would be different. E.g /var/log/dnf.log:
| Removed:
| kernel.x86_64 4.2.5-300.fc23 kernel-core.x86_64 4.2.5-300.fc23
| kernel-modules.x86_64 4.2.5-300.fc23
|
| Installed:
| kernel.x86_64 4.2.7-300.fc23 kernel-core.x86_64 4.2.7-300.fc23
| kernel-modules.x86_64 4.2.7-300.fc23
|
|Upgraded:
[...]
In /var/log/dnf.rpm.log there are individual update status lines,
such as:
| Dec 13 13:52:35 INFO Erased: kernel-4.2.5-300.fc23.x86_64
| Dec 13 13:52:35 INFO Erased: kernel-4.2.5-300.fc23.x86_64
What does "dnf history info NUMBER" tell about that
transaction?
>
dnf history info doesn't warn about the removal of the kernels. Another
fpaste;
http://paste.fedoraproject.org/298647/95915451/
That also sounds much like DNF did not install/erase your kernel packages
normally but treated them like ordinary packages. E.g.
Erase kernel-4.2.5-300.fc23.x86_64 @updates
Install kernel-4.2.7-300.fc23.x86_64 @updates-testing
Erase kernel-core-4.2.5-300.fc23.x86_64 @updates
Install kernel-core-4.2.7-300.fc23.x86_64 @updates-testing
Upgraded kernel-headers-4.2.6-301.fc23.x86_64 @updates
Upgrade 4.2.7-300.fc23.x86_64 @updates-testing
Erase kernel-modules-4.2.5-300.fc23.x86_64 @updates
Install kernel-modules-4.2.7-300.fc23.x86_64 @updates-testing
installonlypkgs=kernel.x86_64, kernel-core.x86_64,
kernel-headers.x86_64,
kernel-modules.x86_64
That could be the culprit. Why and when did you set this? If memory serves
correctly, the implicit default also covers kernel packages correctly. And
if changing it, it's supposed to be a space separated list, isn't it?