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-all-p...
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