On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:54 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Dan Book wrote: > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert <s...@techie.net> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > > > > >> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to > upgrade. > > > > > > > > Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone. > > > > > > > > It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how > this > > > is > > > > supposed to work? Or has something improperly obsoleted it? > > > > > > Sounds like it is new expected behavior of dnf: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827398 > > > > > > The default clean_requirements_on_remove is still something I turn off > > immediately on any system's dnf.conf. It's come up before[1] that this > > could be presented way better in the dnf UI, it's very confusing. > > No, this is not related to clean_requirements_on_remove. As mentioned > upthread, fedora-obsolete-packages now does its job without being > installed. > Sorry I was responding to the confusion in the linked bug report which stems from the UI display of that feature. -Dan
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
