On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Joe Zeff <j...@zeff.us> wrote: > On 01/02/2014 03:42 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > >> >> That would imply that someone actually took the decision to *remove* the >> protections against leaving the system with no installed kernel. Was >> this discussed? What were the proposers smoking? >> > > It's always been a principle that *nix won't stop you from doing something > stupid if it prevents me from doing something clever. I can't see how > removing the installed kernel could be clever, but that might have been > behind their thinking. >
Note that I didn't say "prevent", I said "protect". Yum doesn't prevent it either, since you can easily get round the protection it provides if you want to, but it stops silly accidents from happening and that's a Good Thing (tm). Just like 'rm' will ask you to confirm when you try to remove a protected file, unless you use the '-f' option. > Actually, AIUI, the file isn't removed until the last program that's using > it closes the file. > Of course, this is standard Unix semantics. The only time it will bite you is when the system wants to open a file that has been removed. I wouldn't want to rely on it not wanting to do that. poc
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
