Re: dnf versus yum

On Jan 10, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 01/09/2014 07:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> Am 09.01.2014 22:16, schrieb Przemek Klosowski: >>> I think you can still brick the system with careless yum erases: for >>> instance, deleting grub >> how would this delete the bootloader i

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 10.01.2014 20:55, schrieb Matthew Miller: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:41:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd >>> and running kernel'. I don't have a system to try it on, so I just >>> hope that one can't delete their depend

Re: dnf versus yum

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:41:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd > > and running kernel'. I don't have a system to try it on, so I just > > hope that one can't delete their dependencies either (glibc? what > > else?). > No, you

Re: dnf versus yum

On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 16:16 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 01/09/2014 01:58 PM, Ian Malone wrote: > > Latest installed is almost exactly not what you want, I've had plenty > > (where plenty in this case is probably >5) of cases where a kernel > > update broke something, in quite a few of thos

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 10.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Dridi Boukelmoune: > I actually remember a comparison matrix of OpenSolaris forks, some of > them chose /rpm5?/ for package management, but I can't find a link. > > I do understand why people would want such features built-in, but it > seems a bit short-sighted. And

Re: dnf versus yum

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Bill Nottingham wrote: >> >>> Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected packages functionality

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/09/2014 07:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 09.01.2014 22:16, schrieb Przemek Klosowski: By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd and running kernel'. I don't have a system to try it on what about the machine you sitting in front of? without -y flag yum asks if y

Re: dnf versus yum

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: >>> I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected >>> packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check >>> the man page.

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 09.01.2014 22:16, schrieb Przemek Klosowski: > By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd and > running kernel'. > I don't have a system to try it on what about the machine you sitting in front of? without -y flag yum asks if you mean your input serious > so I just

Re: dnf versus yum

Bill Nottingham wrote: > Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: >> I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected >> packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check >> the man page. It says: >> >> protected_packages This is a list of pa

Re: dnf versus yum

Chris Adams wrote: > The rescue kernel is another option, right there on the boot menu; if > you actually removed all running kernels, it would be the _only_ Fedora > option (and the only option at all on a system without multiple OSes > installed, so booted by default). Not going to happen here,

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/09/2014 01:58 PM, Ian Malone wrote: Latest installed is almost exactly not what you want, I've had plenty (where plenty in this case is probably >5) of cases where a kernel update broke something, in quite a few of those cases to a state where the system wouldn't boot. If the most recent on

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 09.01.2014 19:58, schrieb Ian Malone: > On 9 January 2014 15:13, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> >> On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, "Chris Adams" wrote: >>> >>> Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi said: Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the kernel rather than protecti

Re: dnf versus yum

On 9 January 2014 15:13, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, "Chris Adams" wrote: >> >> Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi said: >> > Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the >> > kernel >> > rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to >>

Re: dnf versus yum

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:56:31 +0100 Jiri Moskovcak wrote: > > Well, I can use dnf in it's current shape quite fine and it works > faster than yum which I take as an improvement, so for me it's ok. So > what now? > > --Jirka > > Then add your voice to the bz to keep it as is. ___ Regards,

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/09/2014 04:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 09.01.2014 16:37, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak: On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would

Re: dnf versus yum

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:03:06 +0100 Jiri Moskovcak wrote: > And what would be the right way to decide? And please stay assured > that this is not a trolling, I would really like to see some > agreement in Fedora on how to decide these kind of things. As we always have I think... If the maintain

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 09.01.2014 16:37, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak: > On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who want this

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who want this change to cc themselves on the bug report. If the cc reaches 40 he

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak: >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 >> >> After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who >> want this change to cc themselves on the bug report. If the cc reaches >> 40 he'll reconsider. Kinda a strange wa

Re: dnf versus yum

On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, "Chris Adams" wrote: > > Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi said: > > Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the kernel > > rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to protect > > something else. > > The magic "don't delete the runn

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/09/2014 03:56 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Jan 7, 2014 4:53 AM, "Frank Murphy" mailto:frankl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100 > Reindl Harald mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote: > > > look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready

Re: dnf versus yum

On Jan 7, 2014 4:53 AM, "Frank Murphy" wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100 > Reindl Harald wrote: > > > look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 > > It seems the majority want the current dnf default

Re: dnf versus yum

Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi said: > Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the kernel > rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to protect > something else. The magic "don't delete the running kernel" can't be done with just a config file. Somethi

Re: dnf versus yum

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:56:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: > > I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected > > packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check the > > man page. It says: > > >

Re: dnf versus yum

Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: > I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected > packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check the > man page. It says: > > protected_packages This is a list of packages that yum should > nev

Re: dnf versus yum

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:43:01PM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > >hence that is why whatever calls itself a replacement for yum should *not* > >support destroy the running system without whatever *force switch* > I don't like the weird partial functionality of this feature. It is > apparently u

Re: dnf versus yum

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > Another point: it shouldn't be hardwired into the package manager but > rather result from package properties. I can see several ways to do it: > - an 'essentiality' property in the RPM file > - a yum/dnf configuration file specifying a

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/05/2014 08:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: "yum remove kernel" is a clean and sane way to remove all but not the running kernels "distribute-command.sh 'yum -y remove kernel'" is used here for years on a ton of machines why do you think that a *replacement* should come up not support this? w

Re: dnf versus yum

On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 03:52:00PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > Protected packages was first implemented * as a yum plugin because Seth > thought it was kind of crazy and shouldn't be core functionality, but then > it proved itself in real use and became built-in. Now, the DNF pages says > "Simil

Re: dnf versus yum

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: > look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 It seems the majority want the current dnf default [1] to be kept Those who want to keep "running" kernel may nee

Re: dnf versus yum

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:56:04 -0500 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > * yum remove kernel vs dnf remove kernel difference (unfiled? ) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 ___ Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 07.01.2014 12:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch: > Dne 7.1.2014 11:34, Ian Malone napsal(a): >> On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >>> I don't even remember I ever needed "yum remove kernel". Does it mean that >>> "yum remove kernel" should not work at all no matter if it leaves running >>>

Re: dnf versus yum

Dne 7.1.2014 11:34, Ian Malone napsal(a): On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: I don't even remember I ever needed "yum remove kernel". Does it mean that "yum remove kernel" should not work at all no matter if it leaves running kernel on the system or not? Or should it be completely pro

Re: dnf versus yum

Dne 7.1.2014 10:52, Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a): On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100 Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: dnf remove kernel --all I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should only remove the latest kernel. How do you make

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:37:23 +0100 Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > Maybe this time you'll answer my question. > Read Vit's comment and my cli "command" suggestion to it! you may get the answer, instead of looking for meanings' not required https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:12:39 +0100 > Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > >> I'm sorry for misunderstanding a command that didn't come with a >> single sentence. >> > >>"dnf remove kernel --all" >>to remove "all" > > What's to misunderstand Maybe this

Re: dnf versus yum

On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: > I don't even remember I ever needed "yum remove kernel". Does it mean that > "yum remove kernel" should not work at all no matter if it leaves running > kernel on the system or not? Or should it be completely prohibited? Why we > keep 3 versions of ke

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:12:39 +0100 Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > I'm sorry for misunderstanding a command that didn't come with a > single sentence. > >"dnf remove kernel --all" >to remove "all" What's to misunderstand ___ Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fed

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:52:52 +0100 > Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > >> I'm sorry I don't understand your answer. >> >> Dridi >> >> > > I can't make it any simpler. You could maybe explain what you meant in the message I've answered to. You've ju

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:52:52 +0100 Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > I'm sorry I don't understand your answer. > > Dridi > > I can't make it any simpler. ___ Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/deve

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100 > Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > >> > dnf remove kernel --all >> >> I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should only remove >> the latest kernel. > > How do you make that out. > Have you ever used

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100 Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > dnf remove kernel --all > > I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should only remove > the latest kernel. How do you make that out. Have you ever used "yum remove kernel" "dnf remove kernel --all" to remove "all" __

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:48:16 +0100 > Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a): >> > Since "* remove kernel" appears to be inspecific, removing all >> > kernels isn't what I'd expect. It's not how mv or cp or anything

Re: dnf versus yum

On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:48:16 +0100 Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a): > > Since "* remove kernel" appears to be inspecific, removing all > > kernels isn't what I'd expect. It's not how mv or cp or anything > > else would work. > > > > So why not turn this around. In

Re: dnf versus yum

Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a): Since "* remove kernel" appears to be inspecific, removing all kernels isn't what I'd expect. It's not how mv or cp or anything else would work. So why not turn this around. In case somebody is doing "dnf remove kernel" and dnf will figures out tha

Re: dnf versus yum

On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On 5 January 2014 18:12, Chris Adams wrote: > > the ordianry user - i doubt > > The "ordinary user" won't do "yum erase kernel" either, so that's moot. > The rescue kernel is another option, right there on the boot menu; if >

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:38:46 -0700 Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > If an expert says "no ordinary user" would ever do a command, they > have not worked front line Tech Support recently enough. > User- can you replace my modem, it doesn't work CSR: - can you do x,y,z . User: - No none work. CSR:

Re: dnf versus yum

On 5 January 2014 18:12, Chris Adams wrote: > > the ordianry user - i doubt > > The "ordinary user" won't do "yum erase kernel" either, so that's moot. > The rescue kernel is another option, right there on the boot menu; if > you actually removed all running kernels, it would be the _only_ Fedora

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/06/2014 05:42 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: It's a nice theory. Sure. It's not a tenable basis on which to operate in the real world of software. So if you want to argue that something doesn't exist, check whether it exists. If you only check the documentation, you're not checking the software

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:22 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > On 01/06/2014 05:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > ... > >> The reason for me asking was that you accused me of "excoriating the dnf > >> devs" (a rather harsh accusation) just because I did not try > >> erase/remove. I looked at the docu

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/06/2014 05:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: ... The reason for me asking was that you accused me of "excoriating the dnf devs" (a rather harsh accusation) just because I did not try erase/remove. I looked at the documentation and used auto completion. Why would I try a number of different sub-

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:26 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > On 01/06/2014 08:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > >> On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > ... > >>> If it exists for backward compatibility, it doesn't necessar

Re: dnf versus yum

On 06.01.2014 16:50, H. Guémar wrote: > Congratulations for lowering the level of this discussion even lower than > it already was ! Au contraire. Users Are Always Right! Love It, Learn It! poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinf

Re: dnf versus yum

Congratulations for lowering the level of this discussion even lower than it already was ! H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: dnf versus yum

On 06.01.2014 16:32, Frank Murphy wrote: > I don't think that helps Au contraire. You should not run this command in the same way as "dnf remove kernel". Maybe we should write a plug-in to provide a safety mechanism!? :) poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.

Re: dnf versus yum

On 04.01.2014 21:09, Adam Williamson wrote: > Because yum's code is a mess. curl -s http://www.textfiles.com/art/monkey.vt From Yum with Love. poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedora

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:30:20 +0100 poma wrote: > On 04.01.2014 21:09, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Because yum's code is a mess. > > curl -s http://www.textfiles.com/art/monkey.vt > From Yum with Love. > > > poma > > I don't think that helps ___ Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com -- dev

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 06.01.2014 16:12, schrieb Tomas Mlcoch: >> Am 06.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch: >>> Also, I'd like to point out that "yum/dnf remove" by default shows what it >>> is going to do and you have to >>> explicitly confirm the action, isn't it enough? How much protection do you >>> need? >> >> t

Re: dnf versus yum

- Original Message - > > > Am 06.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch: > > Also, I'd like to point out that "yum/dnf remove" by default shows what it > > is going to do and you have to > > explicitly confirm the action, isn't it enough? How much protection do you > > need? > > to say it

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > On 01/06/2014 02:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a): > > ... > >>> What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there >>> actually such a use case? >>> >>> Lars >> >> >> Why are

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 06.01.2014 15:39, schrieb Petr Viktorin: > On 01/06/2014 03:32 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: >> On 01/06/2014 02:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a): >> ... What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there actually such a use

Re: dnf versus yum

This discussion has now reached the "phoronix" point http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU2MTE Has anyone filed any tickets so we could move forward or will we continue wasting time here ? Best regards, H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedora

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 06.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch: > Also, I'd like to point out that "yum/dnf remove" by default shows what it is > going to do and you have to > explicitly confirm the action, isn't it enough? How much protection do you > need? to say it clear - *all* protection to avoid breaking the

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: >> On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > If it exists for backward compatibility, it doesn't necessarily need to >> > be documented. >> >> Ehh? Why? Could you elabora

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/06/2014 03:32 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: On 01/06/2014 02:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a): ... What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there actually such a use case? Lars Why are you asking? May be you should let your i

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/06/2014 02:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a): ... What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there actually such a use case? Lars Why are you asking? May be you should let your imagination run riot. Why? Isn't that obvious? If

Re: dnf versus yum

Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a): On 01/06/2014 12:43 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Otherwise, I totally agree with Chris and with DNF upstream. "dnf remove kernel" should remove every kernel and should not behave magically. What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is t

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/06/2014 12:43 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Otherwise, I totally agree with Chris and with DNF upstream. "dnf remove kernel" should remove every kernel and should not behave magically. What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there actually such a use case? Lars -- Lars E. P

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Also, even removing every kernel RPM will not render your system "non-recoverable". You can always use a boot CD, and in modern Fedora systems, the "rescue" kernel/initramfs are never removed (not owned by any RPM), so you

Re: dnf versus yum

Dne 5.1.2014 22:25, Till Maas napsal(a): On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 01:06:16PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel Frankly, that's a dumb "feature" to have the package ma

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/05/2014 07:24 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: Three documentation "bugs" out of a side track of a thread is not a terrible thread, in my opinion... Yum auto completion missing erase: dnf man page missing to mention remove:

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/06/2014 08:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: ... If it exists for backward compatibility, it doesn't necessarily need to be documented. Ehh? Why? Could you elaborate? I don't see w

Re: dnf versus yum

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 23:13 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I don't see what needs elaborating. I'm not aware that the 11th > commandment is "Every Subcommand Must Be Documented, Even Ones You Just > Put In So People Still Using Syntax From The Old Tool You're Replacing > Won't Have A Problem". If

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 19:24 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > ... > >> As I mentioned before I only auto completed yum, remove is not party of > >> the auto completed commands. If remo

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 19:24 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: ... As I mentioned before I only auto completed yum, remove is not party of the auto completed commands. If remove should be there, then this is a bug. I will file one. dnf has no auto c

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/05/2014 11:53 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: where would it be useful to uninstall base-package and YUM/DNF itself bringing your system in a non-recoverable state? I already offered a couple of examples that you ignored (just a couple that came to mind, cer

Re: dnf versus yum

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 02:33 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 06.01.2014 02:12, schrieb Chris Adams: > > Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: > >> border cases where you can use --nodeps > > > > What does --nodeps have to do with this? > > border cases are not usual behavior? His point was t

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 06.01.2014 02:12, schrieb Chris Adams: > Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: >> border cases where you can use --nodeps > > What does --nodeps have to do with this? border cases are not usual behavior? >> this is *really* a border case where download and "rpm -Uvh --force" >> is the way

Re: dnf versus yum

Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: > border cases where you can use --nodeps What does --nodeps have to do with this? > this is *really* a border case where download and "rpm -Uvh --force" > is the way to go No, you should do it correctly. First, AFAIK rpm doesn't have the magic kernel beha

Re: dnf versus yum

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 19:24 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > On 01/05/2014 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > ... > >>> The running kernel should not be removed with a s

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 05.01.2014 23:53, schrieb Chris Adams: > Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: >> where would it be useful to uninstall base-package and YUM/DNF itself >> bringing your system in a non-recoverable state? > > I already offered a couple of examples that you ignored (just a couple > that came t

Re: dnf versus yum

Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: > where would it be useful to uninstall base-package and YUM/DNF itself > bringing your system in a non-recoverable state? I already offered a couple of examples that you ignored (just a couple that came to mind, certainly not an exhaustive list): when you ha

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 05.01.2014 23:33, schrieb Chris Adams: > Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: >> i say the same thing to the autopager and cutted output of >> systemctl and journalctl and the repsonse there is "we are >> not Unix, we are Linux" > > Yeah, I dislike that as well. If I want paged output, I'l

Re: dnf versus yum

Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: > i say the same thing to the autopager and cutted output of > systemctl and journalctl and the repsonse there is "we are > not Unix, we are Linux" Yeah, I dislike that as well. If I want paged output, I'll page it; if I want cut output, I'll cut it. The "h

Re: dnf versus yum

On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 01:06:16PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: > > http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel > > Frankly, that's a dumb "feature" to have the package manager know > "magic" things about s

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/04/2014 03:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 10:50 +0100, Mattia Verga wrote: This is the first time I heard of DNF. Looking at the page where differences between DNF and yum are explained (http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html) my question is: do we really need D

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 05.01.2014 20:06, schrieb Chris Adams: > Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: >> http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel > > Frankly, that's a dumb "feature" to have the package manager know > "magic" things about some names. Why is

Re: dnf versus yum

Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said: > http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel Frankly, that's a dumb "feature" to have the package manager know "magic" things about some names. Why is it dumb? Because some people then depend on magic "

Re: dnf versus yum

On 2014-01-05 19:24, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: On 01/05/2014 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: ... The running kernel should not be removed with a simple 'dnf erase kernel' (w

Re: dnf versus yum

A solution may be for someone to write a plugin that restores the protected packages feature. Fedora users are clearly used to such a feature and expect it while upstream doesnt want to add hand holding features, but provide a method to do the same. On 5 January 2014 18:32, Lars E. Pettersson wr

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/05/2014 07:24 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: As I mentioned before I only auto completed yum, remove is not party of the auto completed commands. If remove should be there, then this is a bug. I will file one. Pressed send a bit too early. Should of course be 'erase' here, not 'remove'...

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/05/2014 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: ... The running kernel should not be removed with a simple 'dnf erase kernel' (why did they change remove into erase?), They d

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 05.01.2014 19:07, schrieb Adam Williamson: > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: >>> On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote: They really want to make dnf work this way. This is explained here: >

Re: dnf versus yum

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > > On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote: > > > They really want to make dnf work this way. > > > This is explained here: > > > http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.htm

Re: dnf versus yum

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 12:34 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 05.01.2014 12:21, schrieb Frank Murphy: > > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:16:36 +0100 > > "Lars E. Pettersson" wrote: > > > >> Ah, did not know that, if you try to auto complete yum only remove > >> shows up, but erase also works. So perhap

Re: dnf versus yum

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote: > > 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-packages-called-kernel > > Yes, I ha

Re: dnf versus yum

Am 05.01.2014 12:21, schrieb Frank Murphy: > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:16:36 +0100 > "Lars E. Pettersson" wrote: > >> Ah, did not know that, if you try to auto complete yum only remove >> shows up, but erase also works. So perhaps erase was an afterthought, >> to mimic the rpm behavior. If rpm has

Re: dnf versus yum

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:16:36 +0100 "Lars E. Pettersson" wrote: > Ah, did not know that, if you try to auto complete yum only remove > shows up, but erase also works. So perhaps erase was an afterthought, > to mimic the rpm behavior. If rpm has erase, and yum also can use > erase, perhaps erase is

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/05/2014 12:02 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote: why did they change remove into erase? Yum actually offers both erase and remove for the same purpose. I don't know which is an alias of t

  1   2   >