Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/23/2014 06:44 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 11:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. I would suggest that the fix for this is to not push broken kernels so frequently that 'the oldest one is the only that works' becomes an issue, and to introduce automatic testing that ensures you can at least boot rawhide to the login screen, _before_ a build gets pushed out to the masses. And how would you envision this to work? Wrt. kernel-bugs and bugs in other essential packages (e.g. xorg) it's not that seldom users are affected by bugs which remain unfixed for arbitrary long periods (occasionally years). Ralf -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/23/2014 07:27 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:44:31 -0400, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: I would suggest that the fix for this is to not push broken kernels so frequently that 'the oldest one is the only that works' becomes an issue, and to introduce automatic testing that ensures you can at least boot rawhide to the login screen, _before_ a build gets pushed out to the masses. While this usually isn't a problem for the updates repo (though there have been times where kernels were not usable by me for several months even in the released branches), it's not so nice for rawhide (possibly plus the rawhide nodebug repo) where there can be new kernels pushed to rawhide each day (and more than one if you're testing things from koji). For example right now I need to use a 3.15 kernel on one of my machines because of an issue affecting md raid and the running kernel is the oldest and only working kernel installed on that machine. I am also running the latest 3.15 on one of my (f20) machines, because apparently x11/kernel interaction is broken for me with all 3.16 kernels (Intel HD Graphics 4600 GPU), And on another machine, I think I have a Nouveau regression (I'm not sure yet and haven't had time to diagnose that problem) and again I need to use a 3.15 kernel which is both the running kernel and the oldest installed kernel. Hey, another duplicity of events ;) I am running a hacked up xorg-x11-server on an NVidia-GPU based machine, because x11 has issues w/ Nvidia's drivers and Nouveau doesn't work at all on this particular machine for a long time ;) Ralf -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/23/2014 07:07 PM, drago01 wrote: You still did not give a simple case why someone with some sanity left would do yum remove rpm or yum remove yum ... that makes no sense. By accident? E.g.. I for one occasionally use to command line to remove whole sets of packages and these occasionally produce unexpected results or suffer from typos. Ralf -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Wednesday, 25 June 2014 at 11:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 06/23/2014 07:27 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:44:31 -0400, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: I would suggest that the fix for this is to not push broken kernels so frequently that 'the oldest one is the only that works' becomes an issue, and to introduce automatic testing that ensures you can at least boot rawhide to the login screen, _before_ a build gets pushed out to the masses. While this usually isn't a problem for the updates repo (though there have been times where kernels were not usable by me for several months even in the released branches), it's not so nice for rawhide (possibly plus the rawhide nodebug repo) where there can be new kernels pushed to rawhide each day (and more than one if you're testing things from koji). For example right now I need to use a 3.15 kernel on one of my machines because of an issue affecting md raid and the running kernel is the oldest and only working kernel installed on that machine. I am also running the latest 3.15 on one of my (f20) machines, because apparently x11/kernel interaction is broken for me with all 3.16 kernels (Intel HD Graphics 4600 GPU), FWIW I had to stay on 3.11.10 until 3.14 came along, because 3.12 and 3.13 would not boot or come out of suspend randomly. So yes, there's a very good case for keeping the running kernel even if it's the oldest one installed. Regards, -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu Faith manages. -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:Confessions and Lamentations -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/23/2014 07:21 PM, Jaroslav Nahorny wrote: Reindl Harald writes: It looks like there isn't even a way to override this behavior in yum. I haven't wanted to remove all the kernels in a while (I guess since before this was added); is the only way to bypass yum and use rpm? yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low Really? Say, you don't know what python is and have no use for it and therefore want to remove it to slim down the footprint of your installation: # yum remove python ... Error: Trying to remove yum, which is protected Similarly, a new-comer can be tempted to remove this meaningless package called bash: # yum remove bash .. Error: Trying to remove systemd, which is protected Error: Trying to remove yum, which is protected Indeed. But that's why yum / dnf displays you the whole transaction and asks you to *confirm*. For me it is a totally reasonable and sane approach. I disagee. In general, people do not know what to answer, because they are unable to estimate the impact of what yes may have. This not only applies to new-comers, but to everybody. It's just that Linux professionals and Linux nerds may have a coarse imagination that removing something could have disasterous consequence, but in general, they also frequently hit their limits when being confronted with OK to remove foobar?. Ralf -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 06/23/2014 07:21 PM, Jaroslav Nahorny wrote: Reindl Harald writes: It looks like there isn't even a way to override this behavior in yum. I haven't wanted to remove all the kernels in a while (I guess since before this was added); is the only way to bypass yum and use rpm? yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low Really? Say, you don't know what python is and have no use for it and therefore want to remove it to slim down the footprint of your installation: # yum remove python ... Error: Trying to remove yum, which is protected Similarly, a new-comer can be tempted to remove this meaningless package called bash: # yum remove bash .. Error: Trying to remove systemd, which is protected Error: Trying to remove yum, which is protected Indeed. But that's why yum / dnf displays you the whole transaction and asks you to *confirm*. For me it is a totally reasonable and sane approach. I disagee. In general, people do not know what to answer, because they are unable to estimate the impact of what yes may have. This not only applies to new-comers, but to everybody. It's just that Linux professionals and Linux nerds may have a coarse imagination that removing something could have disasterous consequence, but in general, they also frequently hit their limits when being confronted with OK to remove foobar?. Well the non nerds and professionals do not go and remove random stuff they did not even install themselves. They also do not tend to mess much with default configs out of fear of breaking something. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 25.06.2014 13:45, schrieb drago01: Well the non nerds and professionals do not go and remove random stuff they did not even install themselves. They also do not tend to mess much with default configs out of fear of breaking something does anybody take away things from you by have the same protections as curently active? what is taken away from you? if it is taken away from you where are all your complaints that YUM does it? in other words: if something does not affect you because you never make mistakes why not simply be happy that you are perfect, laugh about others which are not *but* take your 3 or 4 other friends cluttering the thread with i do not need to be protected somewhere else and leave that thread alone? you do not need protections? fine for you! nobody cares, others do signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 25.06.2014 13:45, schrieb drago01: Well the non nerds and professionals do not go and remove random stuff they did not even install themselves. They also do not tend to mess much with default configs out of fear of breaking something does anybody take away things from you by have the same protections as curently active? what is taken away from you? if it is taken away from you where are all your complaints that YUM does it? No I am just saying its not worth the fuss and 100+ long mail threads. Given that even the DNF developers said OK patches welcome ... so can the ones that care simply spend even 1% of the energy that is put into this thread in writting patches and end the whole thing? -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 25.06.2014 14:05, schrieb drago01: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 25.06.2014 13:45, schrieb drago01: Well the non nerds and professionals do not go and remove random stuff they did not even install themselves. They also do not tend to mess much with default configs out of fear of breaking something does anybody take away things from you by have the same protections as curently active? what is taken away from you? if it is taken away from you where are all your complaints that YUM does it? No I am just saying its not worth the fuss and 100+ long mail threads people like *you* are the reason for the 100+ long mail threads if people who don't care because they are not affected in both directions would shut up and respect that others care without require absolution from the ones saying i don't need threads would be a lot shorter and not that heatet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/25/2014 01:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 06/23/2014 07:07 PM, drago01 wrote: You still did not give a simple case why someone with some sanity left would do yum remove rpm or yum remove yum ... that makes no sense. By accident? E.g.. I for one occasionally use to command line to remove whole sets of packages and these occasionally produce unexpected results or suffer from typos. Accident prevention is exactly what these kind of protections are good for and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. What I find disturbing in this (and other similar threads of the past) is when people are obviously *leaning* on the safety mechanism. The protection as it exists in Fedora today is not up to that, you can easily render a system practically unusable in number of ways without tripping up the yum protections. For the obligatory car analogy ;) Most people agree that the electronic stability control (ESC/ESP/DSC/...) in modern cars is extremely useful and good for catching the occasional minor driver error. It wont save you from constant reckless driving however. - Panu - -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/25/2014 02:40 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 06/25/2014 01:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 06/23/2014 07:07 PM, drago01 wrote: You still did not give a simple case why someone with some sanity left would do yum remove rpm or yum remove yum ... that makes no sense. By accident? E.g.. I for one occasionally use to command line to remove whole sets of packages and these occasionally produce unexpected results or suffer from typos. Accident prevention is exactly what these kind of protections are good for and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. What I find disturbing in this (and other similar threads of the past) is when people are obviously *leaning* on the safety mechanism. The protection as it exists in Fedora today is not up to that, you can easily render a system practically unusable in number of ways without tripping up the yum protections. Absolutely. Nevertheless, yum's protection is good enough to prevent the really stupid accidents. It's not that difficult to accidentally type # yum remove -y python someplugin instead # yum remove -y python-someplugin For the obligatory car analogy ;) Most people agree that the electronic stability control (ESC/ESP/DSC/...) in modern cars is extremely useful and good for catching the occasional minor driver error. It wont save you from constant reckless driving however. I prefer the electric fuse analogy. No developer with a sane mind would have the idea to construct a device/tool without fuse and expose his users to risks of electrocute them. Ralf -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:20:30PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: No I am just saying its not worth the fuss and 100+ long mail threads people like *you* are the reason for the 100+ long mail threads Harald, I'm not kidding with the code of conduct warning. And as before, this goes on both sides. It is abundantly clear that there are a number of people who don't see that this is important, and it really does not add more to keep hammering that. Please be respectful to the people who are trying to provide feedback that it is. (And, going yet back to the other side again -- that feedback seems pretty clear too. No need to keep repeating it either.) -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:23:45 -0400 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:20:30PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: No I am just saying its not worth the fuss and 100+ long mail threads people like *you* are the reason for the 100+ long mail threads Harald, I'm not kidding with the code of conduct warning. And as before, this goes on both sides. It is abundantly clear that there are a number of people who don't see that this is important, and it really does not add more to keep hammering that. Please be respectful to the people who are trying to provide feedback that it is. (And, going yet back to the other side again -- that feedback seems pretty clear too. No need to keep repeating it either.) Additionally, this thread/subject seems to have long since run it's useful course. So, I am closing it off to new posts. thanks, kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 23 June 2014 23:54, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: First of all thank you for your reasoned response. I simply disagree. I understand the fact about require bugs, and the tons of dependent packages. I've seen that also when I've tried to remove a package and noticed it had a myriad of dependencies which would also be removed. However, when I see this, I simply respond N when I'm asked if it is OK to proceed. I also cringe when I see the -y or --assumeyes option mentioned. IMO that is just inviting disaster. I'm surprised no one is demanding that be removed. It is dangerous. Regarding your kernel comment, I've been using Fedora since Redhat 6.2 and DNF since it first came out and I've never encountered this. When I update the kernel, it leaves the prior two on my system for rollback, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, if you manually enter dnf remove kernel it will come back with a list of all your installed kernels, but again, you have to tell it YES to proceed. That said, my concern is that valuable developer time be devoted to something which basically is to assist a small fraction of people who are careless, can't be bothered to read or both. How much time would it take to write such a feature? (DNF is well designed and easy to write for right? That's part of the justification for doing it.) How much time would it take for someone unfamiliar with the workings of DNF to write a plugin and get it accepted by the DNF team? How much time has been wasted arguing against it on this mailing list? And lastly: Why do you assume that making a mistake implies careless or can't be bothered to read, rather than, for example, inexperienced, out of depth following instructions or under pressure and very busy? -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 24.06.2014 00:54, schrieb Gerald B. Cox: Regarding your kernel comment, I've been using Fedora since Redhat 6.2 and DNF since it first came out and I've never encountered this. When I update the kernel, it leaves the prior two on my system for rollback, so I have no idea what you're talking about * the new ones don't boot * the next one don't boot * the next one don't boot too oops - the running one got removed and was the only bootable does not happen that often *but* it happens depending on a specific kernel bug with specific hardware your problem is that you are fighting against things *you think* they are not needed - no understanding for such a behavior because you are not in the position to decide what is important to others and in fact nobody is taking anything away *from you* signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
2014-06-23 17:51 GMT+02:00 Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us: This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. Not withstanding the fact that: 1. You have to be in root mode to invoke 2. It lists everything it is going to do, and you have to explicitly say YES. So we're spending valuable developer time on things like this, when there are certainly more important things that need attention. Just astounding. [...] Hopefully you don't write professional software with this kind of attitude. We don't live in the seventies any more, we moved on and start making things better. We introduce safety features in nearly every area of our life, like cars, planes, trains and even guns (you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot). In none of these areas you can simply do dangerous things, all professional and modern systems ask you up to four, five times if you are really sure when you try to do dangerous things. This is how professional software should act like nowadays and that behavior is what I would expect from a yum replacement. If DNF reaches this kind of professional level, fine, replace yum. If not, don't replace yum with DNF, simple thing. Regards Thomas -- Linux ... enjoy the ride! -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler m...@bendler-net.de wrote: you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot... ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a HUGE list of packages to be removed. If you're not sure whether removing systemd or glibc is a bad idea, perhaps having root access isn't the best plan in the world. There are _so_ _many_ _ways_ to hose your system with root access, I really don't think we can or should baby-proof just one low level command. Richard -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
2014-06-24 11:36 GMT+02:00 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com: On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler m...@bendler-net.de wrote: you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot... ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a Three safety locks the last time I used it. After inserting the magazine I had to load the bullet first, then I had to unlock the gun and then I had to pull the trigger. I don't think that this procedure happens accidentally. HUGE list of packages to be removed. If you're not sure whether removing systemd or glibc is a bad idea, perhaps having root access isn't the best plan in the world. There are _so_ _many_ _ways_ to hose your system with root access, I really don't think we can or should baby-proof just one low level command. Because you don't think about it dosen't mean others think about it. If you build scripts that provision systems after minimal install, doing thinks like yum -y update, reboot and do cleanup like yum -y remove kernel, it works fine with yum but completely crash your system with DNF. Of course, you can wrap around this and build you own checks, but why should the checks be implemented in the scripts if the current update manager already provide this kind of checks and features? Regards Thomas -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Been reading this for a while and I'm getting annoyed by the 'you should know what you are doing' mob. There can be no reason not to have safe guards in dnf to save you from the oh sh#t moments. Everyone has those at some time and those who are learning Linux need these guards to avoid them trashing their system. Everyone starts from a little knowledge base and we should (must) take that on-board. It's irrelevant whether yum does or doesn't have this. If dnf is the new and improved then it should have these from the off else what's to gain from an end SAs point of view. No point in just creating a like-for-like replication. Make it better and safer or don't bother. Jon On 24 Jun 2014 10:37, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler m...@bendler-net.de wrote: you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot... ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a HUGE list of packages to be removed. If you're not sure whether removing systemd or glibc is a bad idea, perhaps having root access isn't the best plan in the world. There are _so_ _many_ _ways_ to hose your system with root access, I really don't think we can or should baby-proof just one low level command. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 24.06.2014 11:36, schrieb Richard Hughes: On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler m...@bendler-net.de wrote: you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot... ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a HUGE list of packages to be removed so answer some simple questions: * why have YUM that protections * why had YUM it originally as plugin * why did developers think it's important enough to go into core i answer you that questions: * because it turned out to be useful * because at the begin nobody thought about this * because it turend out to be very useful another question: why do you think making the same mistakes instead learn from the history is a smart idea? another question: why do people no understand the simple fact * new kernel don't boot * fine, you boot the last one * another kernel update * one older got removed * the new one still don't boot * another new kernel * it still don't boot on a specific system * oh damned the current running one was removed * you have no bootable on your machine * what a shame and *no* don't repeat the nonsense that kernels should not make it into updates - if it only affects a few installations there is no way to figure that out and it won't happen that a kernel got hold back because a few machines may not like it for whatever reason * been there, wrote bugreports * the older kernel was EOL * the newer ones worked on most machines out there * the newer ones fixed important security bugs you can run in circles and pretend it is not useful for you, but the history turned out how life works over the long and people should learn from the history instead dream about a perfect world where no mistakes happen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
2014-06-24 11:40 GMT+02:00 Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com: On 06/24/2014 11:31 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote: Hopefully you don't write professional software with this kind of attitude. Please don't try to win arguments by labeling the opposition as incompetent. You won't convince anyone, and it contributes to making the Fedora mailing lists a hostile place. This has nothing to do with incompetent or wining, this is not my point. The point is, modern software development introduces new concepts and also new safety features. If you take objects and methods as an example, getter and setter methods were introduced to make the handover of variables more bullet proof and to filter out wrong, dangerous, ..., statements. This is something that I simply expect when I use professional software like Fedora and this is why I talked about professional software. Regards Thomas -- Linux ... enjoy the ride! -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 24.06.2014 11:40, schrieb Florian Weimer: On 06/24/2014 11:31 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote: Hopefully you don't write professional software with this kind of attitude. Please don't try to win arguments by labeling the opposition as incompetent. You won't convince anyone, and it contributes to making the Fedora mailing lists a hostile place well, tell the same the guy he responded to having nothing better to do than calling people stupid which don't accept regressions and steps backwards here and on bugzilla hopefully some kernel update in the future won't work on his machine and the third update removes his only bootable one not for malicious joy but it turns out some people need to learn it the hard way that attitude would be acceptable if we would dicuss about new protections never existed before - but in fact we are talking about a proposed replacement of YUM which has these kind of things for years now and in that context it's just a rgeression signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jon Kent jon.k...@gmail.com wrote: Been reading this for a while and I'm getting annoyed by the 'you should know what you are doing' mob. There can be no reason not to have safe guards in dnf to save you from the oh sh#t moments. Everyone has those at some time and those who are learning Linux need these guards to avoid them trashing their system. Everyone starts from a little knowledge base and we should (must) take that on-board. It's irrelevant whether yum does or doesn't have this. If dnf is the new and improved then it should have these from the off else what's to gain from an end SAs point of view. No point in just creating a like-for-like replication. Make it better and safer or don't bother. I have already added a comment [1] to the bz where I basically suggest that dnf acknowledges package protection, but delegates protection policies to plugins. Because I totally agree with you and IIRC this kind of stuff has been added over time in yum. Also IMHO some of those features are very fedora/el specific, and allows yum to work only on fedora and downstream distros. Yum expects the kernel rpm to be named kernel, which is tied to how Fedora packages kernels. It's even worse for non-linux rpm-based OSs. But it depends on the project's goals. Do yum/dnf want to target rpm-based systems or fedora-based systems? Dridi [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c37 Jon On 24 Jun 2014 10:37, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler m...@bendler-net.de wrote: you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot... ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a HUGE list of packages to be removed. If you're not sure whether removing systemd or glibc is a bad idea, perhaps having root access isn't the best plan in the world. There are _so_ _many_ _ways_ to hose your system with root access, I really don't think we can or should baby-proof just one low level command. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 24.06.2014 12:05, schrieb Dridi Boukelmoune: Because I totally agree with you and IIRC this kind of stuff has been added over time in yum. Also IMHO some of those features are very fedora/el specific, and allows yum to work only on fedora and downstream distros. Yum expects the kernel rpm to be named kernel, which is tied to how Fedora packages kernels that's not entirely true, otherwise it won't work the way it does on Rawhide with only kernel-core installed, it's pretty sure a matter of rpm-provides and in that case any distribution cae name the kernel-package linux as long it provides kernel in it's metadata [root@rawhide ~]# yum remove kernel Skipping the running kernel: kernel-core-3.16.0-0.rc1.git4.1.fc21.x86_64 No Packages marked for removal signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/23/2014 06:54 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: First of all thank you for your reasoned response. I simply disagree. I understand the fact about require bugs, and the tons of dependent packages. I've seen that also when I've tried to remove a package and noticed it had a myriad of dependencies which would also be removed. However, when I see this, I simply respond N when I'm asked if it is OK to proceed. I also cringe when I see the -y or --assumeyes option mentioned. IMO that is just inviting disaster. I'm surprised no one is demanding that be removed. It is dangerous. Regarding your kernel comment, I've been using Fedora since Redhat 6.2 and DNF since it first came out and I've never encountered this. When I update the kernel, it leaves the prior two on my system for rollback, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, if you manually enter dnf remove kernel it will come back with a list of all your installed kernels, but again, you have to tell it YES to proceed. That said, my concern is that valuable developer time be devoted to something which basically is to assist a small fraction of people who are careless, can't be bothered to read or both. On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov mailto:przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: On 06/23/2014 11:51 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. You present it as simple, but it's really trickier than you imply for several reasons. We discussed several special cases, which you must have missed so let me recall those for your benefit. First, the dependencies. Updates often involve chains of those, and I've seen cases, e.g. caused by a require bugs, where suddenly some system libraries end up scheduled for removal, dragging along tons of dependent packages. Yes, 'yum update' will then ask for confirmation, but it just isn't scalable---the equivalent of 'yum -y update' must be reliable and recoverable even if things go wobbly. Second, kernel updates deleting all old kernels can delete the only running kernel. You can't just say don't ship broken kernel upgrades because it's a per-system problem---new ones work for most people but if you are the unlucky person for whom it doesn't work, you are in a bind: - you must upgrade because otherwise you will never get a fix - you can't upgrade because it'll delete the only running kernel, and the new one might not work It just makes a lot of sense to identify and protect a subset of packages whose removal is potentially irreversible. Hi Gerald, We get it. In a perfect world we wouldn't need any kind of validation on input because no one would ever make a mistake. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 24 June 2014 11:03, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 24.06.2014 11:40, schrieb Florian Weimer: On 06/24/2014 11:31 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote: Hopefully you don't write professional software with this kind of attitude. Please don't try to win arguments by labeling the opposition as incompetent. You won't convince anyone, and it contributes to making the Fedora mailing lists a hostile place well, tell the same the guy he responded to having nothing better to do than calling people stupid which don't accept regressions and steps backwards here and on bugzilla hopefully some kernel update in the future won't work on his machine and the third update removes his only bootable one not for malicious joy but it turns out some people need to learn it the hard way that attitude would be acceptable if we would dicuss about new protections never existed before - but in fact we are talking about a proposed replacement of YUM which has these kind of things for years now and in that context it's just a rgeression Comment 16 of the Bugzilla suggests that the running kernel is retained during updates in DNF, as it is in Yum. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c16 I don't know if that's correct and it doesn't invalidate any of the arguments about general safety, but apparently update does do something similar to the Yum behaviour (it inverts the meaning of the related setting though). -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 24.06.2014 12:56, schrieb Ian Malone: On 24 June 2014 11:03, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 24.06.2014 11:40, schrieb Florian Weimer: On 06/24/2014 11:31 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote: Hopefully you don't write professional software with this kind of attitude. Please don't try to win arguments by labeling the opposition as incompetent. You won't convince anyone, and it contributes to making the Fedora mailing lists a hostile place well, tell the same the guy he responded to having nothing better to do than calling people stupid which don't accept regressions and steps backwards here and on bugzilla hopefully some kernel update in the future won't work on his machine and the third update removes his only bootable one not for malicious joy but it turns out some people need to learn it the hard way that attitude would be acceptable if we would dicuss about new protections never existed before - but in fact we are talking about a proposed replacement of YUM which has these kind of things for years now and in that context it's just a rgeression Comment 16 of the Bugzilla suggests that the running kernel is retained during updates in DNF, as it is in Yum. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c16 I don't know if that's correct and it doesn't invalidate any of the arguments about general safety, but apparently update does do something similar to the Yum behaviour (it inverts the meaning of the related setting though) don't get me wrong, but instead speculate you could try it out and see that it would get removed and until yesterday the DNF developers statet that they won't protect anything which leaded to my first is DNF ready to replace YUM thread at the begin of this year that was the same state before the kernel-split on Rawhide happened which is a very recent change to keep virtualized guests tiny currently the implementation state is unchanged, what get better is a common sense that it would be useful to protect expect few people which fight against protections while missing arguments https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/444565.html [root@rawhide ~]# dnf remove kernel Failed loading plugin: copr Dependencies resolved. === Package ArchVersion Repository Size === Removing: kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc1.git4.1.fc21 @System 41 M Transaction Summary === Remove 1 Package Installed size: 41 M Is this ok [y/N]: n Exiting on user Command [root@rawhide ~]# yum remove kernel Skipping the running kernel: kernel-core-3.16.0-0.rc1.git4.1.fc21.x86_64 No Packages marked for removal signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 11:45 +0200, Thomas Bendler wrote: 2014-06-24 11:36 GMT+02:00 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com: On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler m...@bendler-net.de wrote: you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot... ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a Three safety locks the last time I used it. After inserting the magazine I had to load the bullet first, then I had to unlock the gun and then I had to pull the trigger. I don't think that this procedure happens accidentally. Two of which aren't safety features, but just part of the mechanism how a gun can be fired. Because everyone loves car analogies: The safety mechanism that keeps your car from moving isn't the tank which can be empty or the ignition which can be switched off, or the accelerator which you can decide not to push down, but the brakes. Mind that I'm not arguing against an additional safety if it can be switched off, but I wouldn't miss it either. Nils -- Nils Philippsen Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty n...@redhat.com nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
2014-06-24 14:25 GMT+02:00 Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com: On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 11:45 +0200, Thomas Bendler wrote: 2014-06-24 11:36 GMT+02:00 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com: On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler m...@bendler-net.de wrote: you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot... ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a Three safety locks the last time I used it. After inserting the magazine I had to load the bullet first, then I had to unlock the gun and then I had to pull the trigger. I don't think that this procedure happens accidentally. Two of which aren't safety features, but just part of the mechanism how a gun can be fired. Because everyone loves car analogies: The safety mechanism that keeps your car from moving isn't the tank which can be empty or the ignition which can be switched off, or the accelerator which you can decide not to push down, but the brakes. Mind that I'm not arguing against an additional safety if it can be switched off, but I wouldn't miss it either. We are not taking about the security needed to move the car, we are taking about the additional security needed to remove the engine. 99% of the time you don't want to remove the engine, even if you have the keys of the car. Seriously, yum already implements this and it's better to have this additional protection than don't have it. Sergio Nils -- Nils Philippsen Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty n...@redhat.com nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Le mardi 24 juin 2014 à 14:43 +0200, Sergio Pascual a écrit : 2014-06-24 14:25 GMT+02:00 Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com: On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 11:45 +0200, Thomas Bendler wrote: 2014-06-24 11:36 GMT+02:00 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com: On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler m...@bendler-net.de wrote: you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot... ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a Three safety locks the last time I used it. After inserting the magazine I had to load the bullet first, then I had to unlock the gun and then I had to pull the trigger. I don't think that this procedure happens accidentally. Two of which aren't safety features, but just part of the mechanism how a gun can be fired. Because everyone loves car analogies: The safety mechanism that keeps your car from moving isn't the tank which can be empty or the ignition which can be switched off, or the accelerator which you can decide not to push down, but the brakes. Mind that I'm not arguing against an additional safety if it can be switched off, but I wouldn't miss it either. We are not taking about the security needed to move the car, we are taking about the additional security needed to remove the engine. 99% of the time you don't want to remove the engine, even if you have the keys of the car. Seriously, yum already implements this and it's better to have this additional protection than don't have it. Hi, I do agree, I also don't think it is horrible to have by default some safety nets which any advanced user can disable than risking to discourage new users because they did some mistakes for any raison cited before. Preventing DNF from removing the minimum you need to boot and recover your system really makes sens. Best regards, Alexis. Sergio Nils -- Nils Philippsen Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty n...@redhat.com nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- jeandet alexis.jean...@member.fsf.org Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 24 June 2014 12:51, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 24.06.2014 12:56, schrieb Ian Malone: On 24 June 2014 11:03, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 24.06.2014 11:40, schrieb Florian Weimer: On 06/24/2014 11:31 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote: Hopefully you don't write professional software with this kind of attitude. Please don't try to win arguments by labeling the opposition as incompetent. You won't convince anyone, and it contributes to making the Fedora mailing lists a hostile place well, tell the same the guy he responded to having nothing better to do than calling people stupid which don't accept regressions and steps backwards here and on bugzilla hopefully some kernel update in the future won't work on his machine and the third update removes his only bootable one not for malicious joy but it turns out some people need to learn it the hard way that attitude would be acceptable if we would dicuss about new protections never existed before - but in fact we are talking about a proposed replacement of YUM which has these kind of things for years now and in that context it's just a rgeression Comment 16 of the Bugzilla suggests that the running kernel is retained during updates in DNF, as it is in Yum. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c16 I don't know if that's correct and it doesn't invalidate any of the arguments about general safety, but apparently update does do something similar to the Yum behaviour (it inverts the meaning of the related setting though) don't get me wrong, but instead speculate you could try it out and see that it would get removed and until yesterday the DNF developers statet that they won't protect anything which leaded to my first is DNF ready to replace YUM thread at the begin of this year [root@rawhide ~]# dnf remove kernel Failed loading plugin: copr Dependencies resolved. I meant to say I don't know for sure because I don't have a system with DNF to try it on. However I said 'update' and not 'remove', which I realise is the main point in this whole debate, but the 'running kernel preserved against updates' argument is not about 'remove'. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/23/2014 07:35 PM, Mattia Verga wrote: If yum history showed that a protection for critical packages is useful and appreciated by the majority, why the yum replacement shouldn't implement that protection saying it's unuseful? I'd go into a different direction: The fact, yum had such a protection, has prevented users from going through the learning curve of having to experience such incidents. That said, yum's protection mechanims to me is a fuse, like the electrical fuse in your house, which you'll hardly notice and are likely to consider superflous, until you one day realize it already has safed your life multiple times. Ralf -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Gerald B. Cox gbcox at bzb.us writes: Sigh A gun doesn't require you to go into root mode before using it; and it doesn't ask you if you are sure before you pull the trigger. dnf requires root mode _every_ time you use it. Same for asking if you're sure (unless the -y option is used). Any barrier that has to be passed every time you use something, will be automatically passed without thinking, by someone in a hurry. (And of course the people in a hurry will use -y, so you don't even have that.) It goes without saying that time is limited, so you can't just casually blame the user for not taking extra time to work around the software's lack of protection against dangerous behavior. Since there are only a few devs and many users, it's expected that devs should spend some time including protection, to save a much larger amount on the user side. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Gerald B. Cox gbcox at bzb.us writes: I also cringe when I see the -y or --assumeyes option mentioned. IMO that is just inviting disaster. I'm surprised no one is demanding that be removed. It is dangerous. Someone might need to use yum or dnf in a script. Personally, that's the _only_ time I'd ever use -y (and I've never done it), but at least there's a use case. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:16:08PM +, Andre Robatino wrote: I also cringe when I see the -y or --assumeyes option mentioned. IMO that is just inviting disaster. I'm surprised no one is demanding that be removed. It is dangerous. Someone might need to use yum or dnf in a script. Personally, that's the _only_ time I'd ever use -y (and I've never done it), but at least there's a use case. FWIW (peanuts! or possibly, honey-roasted almonds...), my yum configuration for years has been to set 'alwaysprompt' to 0. That way, it does what you say without prompting when your command line is an exact match of packages to be installed and no dependencies are needed. It only prompts if there is something out of the ordinary. That helps avoid the always just confirm! reflex syndrome which can set in when there's a prompt every time. In my version of that patch long ago, it worked for removes too, which makes most sense in the context of protectedpackages. You can remove things without confirmation, but not whole chains of things, and you can't remove something which would put you in a state where you can't get back. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 22. 6. 2014 at 23:36:34, Rahul Sundaram wrote: HI On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: This isn't for a plugin, but as a core feature: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955673 As previously noted, the yum functionality was originally a plugin but then adopted as core feature. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Yes, I filed it but it was pretty quickly rejected. I am wondering if there is openness to implementing this atleast as a plugin or will the decision be reconsidered if enough votes aka cc can be garnered? As always, patches are welcome. Thanks Jan -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 06:29, schrieb Gerald B. Cox: I think there are much more important things to be concerned about than: 1. Childproofing software. 2. Writing software to protect against software bugs. DNF already requires that you have root privileges so what in addition to requiring you to answer Yes to apply changes so what Those safeguards are more than sufficient. Additional requirements above and beyond that are redundant and actually become a nuisance for those who RTFM. those safeguards are *not* sufficient i learned over many years that i can trust YUM if it comes to cleanup all kernels except the running one or uninstall packages and be sure that RPM/YUM/Kernel itself are not killed so that safeguards did not fall from heaven they where implemented for a reason replace YUM with DNF and ignore that history is silly As far as the bug issue, that is an ad hominem justification. The owner of DNF has appropriately rejected this... move on. nobody cares what you think becaue it is a *regression* and not a matter what someone thinks even the owner of coreutils [root@rawhide ~]# rm -rf / /usr/bin/rm: it is dangerous to operate recursively on '/' /usr/bin/rm: use --no-preserve-root to override this failsafe that said to the trolls saying rm -rf / would also not protect you On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com mailto:methe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: This isn't for a plugin, but as a core feature: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955673 As previously noted, the yum functionality was originally a plugin but then adopted as core feature.https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Yes, I filed it but it was pretty quickly rejected. I am wondering if there is openness to implementing this atleast as a plugin or will the decision be reconsidered if enough votes aka cc can be garnered? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:25:46 +0200 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: snipped https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c29 ___ Regards Frank frankly3d.com -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 11:28, schrieb Frank Murphy: On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:25:46 +0200 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: snipped https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c29 sounds like there is now a chance DNF get trustable until Fedroa 22 is released which is for sure the better way than wait for enough complaints of killed user setups and re-consider than after the damage was done signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Jan Zelený wrote: As always, patches are welcome. http://www.xenoterracide.com/2010/05/dont-say-patches-welcome.html -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: Jan Zelený wrote: As always, patches are welcome. http://www.xenoterracide.com/2010/05/dont-say-patches-welcome.html That link is nonsense. It *is* reasonable to ask people on a *development mailing list* for patches ... -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Hi On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:17 AM, drago01 wrote: That link is nonsense. It *is* reasonable to ask people on a *development mailing list* for patches ... Perhaps but this is more a community of packagers and doing so here would be viewed as an offhanded brush off but what I asked for is whether established precedence of dnf developers reconsidering an issue based on number of people subscribed to a bug report applies here. In any case, in another related bug report, it does appear that, the feature is going to be implemented https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c29 Whether it is going to be default behavior is unclear but this is progress nevertheless. So thanks! Rahul -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. Not withstanding the fact that: 1. You have to be in root mode to invoke 2. It lists everything it is going to do, and you have to explicitly say YES. So we're spending valuable developer time on things like this, when there are certainly more important things that need attention. Just astounding. On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:17 AM, drago01 wrote: That link is nonsense. It *is* reasonable to ask people on a *development mailing list* for patches ... Perhaps but this is more a community of packagers and doing so here would be viewed as an offhanded brush off but what I asked for is whether established precedence of dnf developers reconsidering an issue based on number of people subscribed to a bug report applies here. In any case, in another related bug report, it does appear that, the feature is going to be implemented https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c29 Whether it is going to be default behavior is unclear but this is progress nevertheless. So thanks! Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
I know that a pistol can be dangerous and I can even shoot myself. I keep it in a place where childrens can't reach it, so why bothering with a safety lock? It can be cheaper making the pistol without it... Il 23/06/2014 17:51, Gerald B. Cox ha scritto: This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. Not withstanding the fact that: 1. You have to be in root mode to invoke 2. It lists everything it is going to do, and you have to explicitly say YES. So we're spending valuable developer time on things like this, when there are certainly more important things that need attention. Just astounding. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:51:51 -0700, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 11:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. I would suggest that the fix for this is to not push broken kernels so frequently that 'the oldest one is the only that works' becomes an issue, and to introduce automatic testing that ensures you can at least boot rawhide to the login screen, _before_ a build gets pushed out to the masses. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said: Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. I guess I never considered it a pain. That's exactly what I would do if I knew a particular kernel was broken (remove specifically the broken kernel). I never knew yum/a yum plugin/whatever did magic stuff based on the running kernel, trying to remove special packages like yum, etc. I always consider command-line tools (especially those that can only make changes when run by root) to be do what I say. I usually remove the helpful aliases for rm/cp/mv from ~root/.bashrc, as I've had problems due to them in the past. If I'm root and I say rm, I expect it to rm. I would never say yum remove kernel and expect it to NOT remove all packages named kernel (I would actually be confused if it didn't). I have no problem with GUI tools having magic protections built in, but I prefer CLI tools that don't try to out-think me. yum/dnf already asks for confirmation (which is more than up2date did); having additional layers of protection/confirmation/whatever built-in seems excessive to me. It looks like there isn't even a way to override this behavior in yum. I haven't wanted to remove all the kernels in a while (I guess since before this was added); is the only way to bypass yum and use rpm? -- Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 18:44, schrieb Matthias Clasen: On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 11:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. I would suggest that the fix for this is to not push broken kernels so frequently that 'the oldest one is the only that works' becomes an issue, and to introduce automatic testing that ensures you can at least boot rawhide to the login screen, _before_ a build gets pushed out to the masses please come back to the real world define broken - the one kernel last year which did not boot on both of my machines likely worked for a lot of other people and so it got karma and as long Fedora is not Apple only supporting a restricted set of hardware what you suggest is just impossible and so the right way to do is don't thow away *existing* safety nets and call that improvement fine, it would be cool if there would never exist broken updates but they existed, the will exist in the future and nobody ever will be able to change that - so handle it and accept that there are existing methods to handle that, be gald that they exist and shout to anybody trying to remove them and call it improvement signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 23 June 2014 17:57, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: please come back to the real world That doesn't sound very excellent. Do we have to start mentioning the moderation word again? Richard. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 18:47, schrieb Chris Adams: Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said: Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. I guess I never considered it a pain. That's exactly what I would do if I knew a particular kernel was broken (remove specifically the broken kernel). I never knew yum/a yum plugin/whatever did magic stuff based on the running kernel, trying to remove special packages like yum, etc. be glad that you learned something new :-) I have no problem with GUI tools having magic protections built in, but I prefer CLI tools that don't try to out-think me. yum/dnf already asks for confirmation (which is more than up2date did); having additional layers of protection/confirmation/whatever built-in seems excessive to me. in general - agreed but not if it comes to destory the complete setup It looks like there isn't even a way to override this behavior in yum. I haven't wanted to remove all the kernels in a while (I guess since before this was added); is the only way to bypass yum and use rpm? yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low frankly - it would be for sure not impossible to implement a yum --disable-protections - but that would be more wasted time given how often it is really what the user wants, but i have no problem with a do what i say the same applies to rm -rf / which is also protected and can be overriden with a CLI switch - for the same reason: it's hardly what the user really wanted to do signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 19:00, schrieb Richard Hughes: On 23 June 2014 17:57, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: please come back to the real world That doesn't sound very excellent. Do we have to start mentioning the moderation word again? please don't quote out of context thank you! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 23.06.2014 18:47, schrieb Chris Adams: Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said: Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. I guess I never considered it a pain. That's exactly what I would do if I knew a particular kernel was broken (remove specifically the broken kernel). I never knew yum/a yum plugin/whatever did magic stuff based on the running kernel, trying to remove special packages like yum, etc. be glad that you learned something new :-) I have no problem with GUI tools having magic protections built in, but I prefer CLI tools that don't try to out-think me. yum/dnf already asks for confirmation (which is more than up2date did); having additional layers of protection/confirmation/whatever built-in seems excessive to me. in general - agreed but not if it comes to destory the complete setup It looks like there isn't even a way to override this behavior in yum. I haven't wanted to remove all the kernels in a while (I guess since before this was added); is the only way to bypass yum and use rpm? yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low You still did not give a simple case why someone with some sanity left would do yum remove rpm or yum remove yum ... that makes no sense. I can buy the kernel case as clean up old kernels tool. But if you don't know what you are doing you do not type random commands, so can we go back to make decision based on *real use cases* and not on obscure what if scenarios? So again why do you expect someone to try to remove rpm or glibc using yum (or dnf)? -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: I know that a pistol can be dangerous and I can even shoot myself. I keep it in a place where childrens can't reach it, so why bothering with a safety lock? It can be cheaper making the pistol without it... Sigh A gun doesn't require you to go into root mode before using it; and it doesn't ask you if you are sure before you pull the trigger. This is akin to having Caution - May contain nuts on a bag of peanuts, Contents may be hot on a cup of coffee. I guess we're now suppose to assume that Fedora Users have ZERO common sense. Whatever... -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 19:14, schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it mailto:mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: I know that a pistol can be dangerous and I can even shoot myself. I keep it in a place where childrens can't reach it, so why bothering with a safety lock? It can be cheaper making the pistol without it... Sigh A gun doesn't require you to go into root mode before using it; and it doesn't ask you if you are sure before you pull the trigger. This is akin to having Caution - May contain nuts on a bag of peanuts, Contents may be hot on a cup of coffee. I guess we're now suppose to assume that Fedora Users have ZERO common sense. Whatever... *stop* to insult people if you don't need a protection you like don't try to cleanup your systems as much as possible - others doing - so *nobody* is taking away anything from you - so you have *no reason* to insult people expecting smart systems not destroy themself and don't honor *steps backwards* because these protections existing over years now so *what* is your problem? none becaus eall works for you? fine, then stop your noises and be sure - whenever you come and complain in any context that things got broken unintentionally and i know that nobody knowing what he is doing in that specific context i will be here and point to your posts in that thread. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 19:07 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 23.06.2014 18:47, schrieb Chris Adams: Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said: Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. I guess I never considered it a pain. That's exactly what I would do if I knew a particular kernel was broken (remove specifically the broken kernel). I never knew yum/a yum plugin/whatever did magic stuff based on the running kernel, trying to remove special packages like yum, etc. be glad that you learned something new :-) I have no problem with GUI tools having magic protections built in, but I prefer CLI tools that don't try to out-think me. yum/dnf already asks for confirmation (which is more than up2date did); having additional layers of protection/confirmation/whatever built-in seems excessive to me. in general - agreed but not if it comes to destory the complete setup It looks like there isn't even a way to override this behavior in yum. I haven't wanted to remove all the kernels in a while (I guess since before this was added); is the only way to bypass yum and use rpm? yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low You still did not give a simple case why someone with some sanity left would do yum remove rpm or yum remove yum ... One thing I've seen a few times at the time Yum didn't have that protection was « I don't do development, so I can remove Python » It did lead to a few people not having Yum installed any more. -- Mathieu -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 23/06/14 17:51, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Not withstanding the fact that: 1. You have to be in root mode to invoke 2. It lists everything it is going to do, and you have to explicitly say YES. Assuming that it will always wants a yes to confirm, people will pretty fast get used to it and automatically type yes. Also such protection is pretty much standard, see debians apt for example if you, for whatever reason, accidentally want to remove important packages: WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed. This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! base-files bash 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 28 to remove and 0 not upgraded. After this operation, 2,355 MB disk space will be freed. You are about to do something potentially harmful. To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as I say!' ?] A package system exists to help people maintaining their systems, not to educate them. It shouldn't carelessly destroy the system. jm2c Sven -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:21:43 +0200 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote: One thing I've seen a few times at the time Yum didn't have that protection was « I don't do development, so I can remove Python » It did lead to a few people not having Yum installed any more. I don't have all the history\chagelogs\bz's of yum. But, am guessing it had the protection, due to someone doing something that made many an expletive come alive. Maybe even worse that what you recall above. ___ Regards Frank frankly3d.com -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:44:31 -0400, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: I would suggest that the fix for this is to not push broken kernels so frequently that 'the oldest one is the only that works' becomes an issue, and to introduce automatic testing that ensures you can at least boot rawhide to the login screen, _before_ a build gets pushed out to the masses. While this usually isn't a problem for the updates repo (though there have been times where kernels were not usable by me for several months even in the released branches), it's not so nice for rawhide (possibly plus the rawhide nodebug repo) where there can be new kernels pushed to rawhide each day (and more than one if you're testing things from koji). For example right now I need to use a 3.15 kernel on one of my machines because of an issue affecting md raid and the running kernel is the oldest and only working kernel installed on that machine. And on another machine, I think I have a Nouveau regression (I'm not sure yet and haven't had time to diagnose that problem) and again I need to use a 3.15 kernel which is both the running kernel and the oldest installed kernel. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: *stop* to insult people It's not insulting people to state facts. Just because you are on this ridiculous tirade doesn't mean that people aren't allow to push back on this insanity. I've read your posts, and if anyone is insulting, you are. Calling people stupid, telling people to shut-up, etc. If anything this thread doesn't belong on a developers forum, but rather one for end-users. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Reindl Harald writes: Am 23.06.2014 18:47, schrieb Chris Adams: Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said: Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one wasn't removed) would be a pain. I guess I never considered it a pain. That's exactly what I would do if I knew a particular kernel was broken (remove specifically the broken kernel). I never knew yum/a yum plugin/whatever did magic stuff based on the running kernel, trying to remove special packages like yum, etc. be glad that you learned something new :-) I have no problem with GUI tools having magic protections built in, but I prefer CLI tools that don't try to out-think me. yum/dnf already asks for confirmation (which is more than up2date did); having additional layers of protection/confirmation/whatever built-in seems excessive to me. in general - agreed but not if it comes to destory the complete setup It looks like there isn't even a way to override this behavior in yum. I haven't wanted to remove all the kernels in a while (I guess since before this was added); is the only way to bypass yum and use rpm? yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low Indeed. But that's why yum / dnf displays you the whole transaction and asks you to *confirm*. For me it is a totally reasonable and sane approach. If you claim there are people who won't read the list of to-be-removed packages and blindly hit *Y* - well, I belive you are right - there are such people. But we won't stop them from hurting themselves, sooner or later. If you think the 'confirmation required' dialog is not enough - please create a plugin for dnf, and make a feature request for its inclusion. Then at least the discussion is productive. the same applies to rm -rf / which is also protected and can be overriden with a CLI switch - for the same reason: it's hardly what the user really wanted to do Exactly. System warns you, but if you insist, it will allow you to rm -rf /. The same is with dnf. It will show you the list of packages it's going to remove, and ask you if you are sure this is what you want. What more do we need? I hate when my OS tries to be smarten than me. So, if the command dnf remove kernel would immediately remove all the kernels without asking for confirmation, I'd say you're right. But it's not. And you are wrong. Thanks. Bye! -- jaroslav pgp1Rfgfit81V.pgp Description: PGP signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 19:21, schrieb Mathieu Bridon: On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 19:07 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low You still did not give a simple case why someone with some sanity left would do yum remove rpm or yum remove yum ... One thing I've seen a few times at the time Yum didn't have that protection was « I don't do development, so I can remove Python » It did lead to a few people not having Yum installed any more way easier - dependecies it's not always obvious why some package is installed many times packages get installed by package errors many times packages are no longer used because the consumer switched to a different library without that protection any what is that, i don't need it and try to remove it brings the danger to ruin the setup the protections lead to - oh, i don't need it but the system does signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 19:30, schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: *stop* to insult people It's not insulting people to state facts. Just because you are on this ridiculous tirade which is insulting doesn't mean that people aren't allow to push back on this insanity which is insulting I've read your posts, and if anyone is insulting, you are. Calling people stupid, telling people to shut-up, etc. guess why: people like you with careless i don#t need, nobody needs If anything this thread doesn't belong on a developers forum, but rather one for end-users it is a *development mistake* to make steps backwards however * please don't respond to my posts * please don't repsond to bugreports i am involved why? because you don't care for a sane operating system and don't understand that people which do are taking nothing away from you signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Il 23/06/2014 19:14, Gerald B. Cox ha scritto: Sigh A gun doesn't require you to go into root mode before using it; and it doesn't ask you if you are sure before you pull the trigger. In my example this was exactly the case. I am the root, childrens are users. And yes, it asks you if you're sure to pull the trigger, that's exactly the scope of safety lock. This is akin to having Caution - May contain nuts on a bag of peanuts, Contents may be hot on a cup of coffee. I guess we're now suppose to assume that Fedora Users have ZERO common sense. No one is fault proof. What's wrong in trying to avoid things that can completely broke the system and in 99.99% will be never required by users? If yum history showed that a protection for critical packages is useful and appreciated by the majority, why the yum replacement shouldn't implement that protection saying it's unuseful? -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said: without that protection any what is that, i don't need it and try to remove it brings the danger to ruin the setup And the protection is already there - the list of dependent packages that will be removed, followed by a confirmation request that you really want to do that. -- Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 19:21, schrieb Jaroslav Nahorny: Exactly. System warns you, but if you insist, it will allow you to rm -rf /. The same is with dnf. It will show you the list of packages it's going to remove, and ask you if you are sure this is what you want. What more do we need? ah you know any single library with insane names and it's consumers on your system - i doubt I hate when my OS tries to be smarten than me. sometimes it is So, if the command dnf remove kernel would immediately remove all the kernels without asking for confirmation, I'd say you're right. But it's not. And you are wrong. Thanks. Bye! you don't understand the point * currently YUM protects * DNS is selled as improvemnt * remove protections is the opposite signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 19:21:07 +0200, Jaroslav Nahorny jaros...@hackerspace.pl wrote: For me it is a totally reasonable and sane approach. If you claim there are people who won't read the list of to-be-removed packages and blindly hit *Y* - well, I belive you are right - there are such people. But we won't stop them from hurting themselves, sooner or later. Note this isn't just removals, it is also updates that can break kernels. You really don't want the running kernel package to be removed by default, even when it is the oldest, to make room for the newest version. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said: without that protection any what is that, i don't need it and try to remove it brings the danger to ruin the setup And the protection is already there - the list of dependent packages that will be removed, followed by a confirmation request that you really want to do that. Well, yeah and everybody is reading the complete output of yum/dnf if it's trying to remove hundreds of packages? I really don't see why we should remove automatic safety measures if they were available for some time and are in such cases really useful. Johannes -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
You're reply is wrong on so many levels I just don't know where to begin. Suffice to say if you continue to clutter up the forum with nonsense I will push back. On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 23.06.2014 19:30, schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: *stop* to insult people It's not insulting people to state facts. Just because you are on this ridiculous tirade which is insulting doesn't mean that people aren't allow to push back on this insanity which is insulting I've read your posts, and if anyone is insulting, you are. Calling people stupid, telling people to shut-up, etc. guess why: people like you with careless i don#t need, nobody needs If anything this thread doesn't belong on a developers forum, but rather one for end-users it is a *development mistake* to make steps backwards however * please don't respond to my posts * please don't repsond to bugreports i am involved why? because you don't care for a sane operating system and don't understand that people which do are taking nothing away from you -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 19:36, schrieb Chris Adams: Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said: without that protection any what is that, i don't need it and try to remove it brings the danger to ruin the setup And the protection is already there - the list of dependent packages that will be removed, followed by a confirmation request that you really want to do that expeting that every user knows every package and can make taht decision for sure is naive - after many years working with Fedora i know most packages which are installed on systems i maintain guess why - because until now i could trust the operating systems not let me uninstall important ones - if every second try to get rid of unused packages lead in a destroyed setup i would have stopped try to learn more about the system and clean it up yeas ago signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Once upon a time, Johannes Lips johannes.l...@gmail.com said: Well, yeah and everybody is reading the complete output of yum/dnf if it's trying to remove hundreds of packages? Well, yeah. First, if you think you are removing a leaf or minor package and the package manager lists 100+ dependent packages, you should take notice and perhaps re-think what you are trying to do. Second, if you decide you want to continue, you should look over the list of packages to be removed. If people really want some magic protections in this case, rather than having special packages, it should probably be based on the number of affected dependent packages (and/or maybe a percentage of installed packages). -- Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Johannes Lips johannes.l...@gmail.com said: Well, yeah and everybody is reading the complete output of yum/dnf if it's trying to remove hundreds of packages? Well, yeah. First, if you think you are removing a leaf or minor package and the package manager lists 100+ dependent packages, you should take notice and perhaps re-think what you are trying to do. Second, if you decide you want to continue, you should look over the list of packages to be removed. Of course, but how fast can a small three letter work like yum or dnf can be overlooked? I don't really see any benefit of not implementing it, if it makes an installation safer. But this whole discussion is pointless, because the people, who do the work will most likely decide the outcome! If people really want some magic protections in this case, rather than having special packages, it should probably be based on the number of affected dependent packages (and/or maybe a percentage of installed packages). -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Reindl Harald writes: Am 23.06.2014 19:36, schrieb Chris Adams: Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said: without that protection any what is that, i don't need it and try to remove it brings the danger to ruin the setup And the protection is already there - the list of dependent packages that will be removed, followed by a confirmation request that you really want to do that expeting that every user knows every package and can make taht decision for sure is naive „If you don't know what the package is for - don't remove it”. If I type „dnf remove foo” and I see only „foo” is going to be removed, most probably I'm fine. However, if the tool lists 100 packages to be removed as dependencies, most probably I should answer *N*. Seriously. A user can do „su” and then remove random files in /bin directory. Including yum, dnf, rpm and bash. Do we want to also disallow that? guess why - because until now i could trust the operating systems not let me uninstall important ones I would never „trust” OS here. If you want to have a list of not-allowed-to-be-removed packages, it is maintained by human. The human can be wrong. That's why you *always* read the list of packages to be removed. And there's no such a thing like „important” package. Maybe I'm using my own kernels and I really want to remove all Fedora kernels? I don't want to do any weird hacks to be allowed to do this. „dnf remove kernel” followed by *Y* is perfectly OK. I've seen enterprise appliances running RHEL, where vendor removes most of the tools considered as non-needed *including* RPM. -- jaroslav pgp8dy11JFKpF.pgp Description: PGP signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 19:53, schrieb Chris Adams: Once upon a time, Johannes Lips johannes.l...@gmail.com said: Well, yeah and everybody is reading the complete output of yum/dnf if it's trying to remove hundreds of packages? Well, yeah. First, if you think you are removing a leaf or minor package and the package manager lists 100+ dependent packages, you should take notice and perhaps re-think what you are trying to do. Second, if you decide you want to continue, you should look over the list of packages to be removed. Well, yeah people will know that later If people really want some magic protections in this case, rather than having special packages, it should probably be based on the number of affected dependent packages (and/or maybe a percentage of installed packages) oh my god - the protections of yum are made with understanding and not by blindly a random number the existing protections finally have to goal to prevent whatever you confirm is revertable by not remove rpm, yum and the running kernel, systemd and so on itself finally that means: whatever you do - even if you remove any graphical tool you can still boot up the machine, login into a console and yum install whatever you need that is smart - alert based on a number is clumsy i can see that number by myself at the bottom on a system where i want to remove *any* graphical stuff and anything but the core system i don't care about numbers or cross-dependencies - the only thing i care about is that after i have reduced the setup to a bare minimum i can yum install whatever i need instead start from scratch and insert the install medium signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Reindl Harald writes: Am 23.06.2014 19:21, schrieb Jaroslav Nahorny: Exactly. System warns you, but if you insist, it will allow you to rm -rf /. The same is with dnf. It will show you the list of packages it's going to remove, and ask you if you are sure this is what you want. What more do we need? ah you know any single library with insane names and it's consumers on your system - i doubt Of course I don't. That's why I don't remove them blindly. If in doubts, I'm reading what they are used for. I hate when my OS tries to be smarten than me. sometimes it is No, it never is. So, if the command dnf remove kernel would immediately remove all the kernels without asking for confirmation, I'd say you're right. But it's not. And you are wrong. Thanks. Bye! you don't understand the point * currently YUM protects * DNS is selled as improvemnt * remove protections is the opposite It's your point of view. For me it is improvement. I don't want to be bothered with multiple levels of idiot-proofing-security-mechanisms. My dear package manager, if I want to remove kernel, please allow me to do so. -- jaroslav pgp0e9lwNAS4B.pgp Description: PGP signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 19:57 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Johannes Lips johannes.l...@gmail.com said: Well, yeah and everybody is reading the complete output of yum/dnf if it's trying to remove hundreds of packages? Well, yeah. First, if you think you are removing a leaf or minor package and the package manager lists 100+ dependent packages, you should take notice and perhaps re-think what you are trying to do. Second, if you decide you want to continue, you should look over the list of packages to be removed. Of course, but how fast can a small three letter work like yum or dnf can be overlooked? I don't really see any benefit of not implementing it, if it makes an installation safer. But this whole discussion is pointless, because the people, who do the work will most likely decide the outcome! If people really want some magic protections in this case, rather than having special packages, it should probably be based on the number of affected dependent packages (and/or maybe a percentage of installed packages). The good news is that for dnf you can become a developer and then work from the group to make it do what you want. I am sure that your experience and knowledge will be a welcome addition to the team. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:53:19 -0500, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote: Once upon a time, Johannes Lips johannes.l...@gmail.com said: Well, yeah and everybody is reading the complete output of yum/dnf if it's trying to remove hundreds of packages? Well, yeah. First, if you think you are removing a leaf or minor package and the package manager lists 100+ dependent packages, you should take notice and perhaps re-think what you are trying to do. Second, if you decide you want to continue, you should look over the list of packages to be removed. It isn't just remove/erase operations. Updates can be problematic for kernels. distro-sync can also remove some packages while updating or downgrading others and that might catch some people by surprise. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: It isn't just remove/erase operations. Updates can be problematic for kernels. distro-sync can also remove some packages while updating or downgrading others and that might catch some people by surprise. And once in awhile a packager fumbles Obsoletes/Provides for a package, and then some really surprising results can come out of the depsolver, as a web search for Protected multilib versions will show. How about a compromise solution: a plugin, enabled by default, that protects a few key components (kernel, systemd, rpm), and nothing to prevent that plugin from being removed (i.e., no direct dependencies on the plugin)? That, it seems to me, would satisfy most of the participants in this thread. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 23.06.2014 20:10, schrieb Jerry James: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: It isn't just remove/erase operations. Updates can be problematic for kernels. distro-sync can also remove some packages while updating or downgrading others and that might catch some people by surprise. And once in awhile a packager fumbles Obsoletes/Provides for a package, and then some really surprising results can come out of the depsolver, as a web search for Protected multilib versions will show. How about a compromise solution: a plugin, enabled by default, that protects a few key components (kernel, systemd, rpm), and nothing to prevent that plugin from being removed (i.e., no direct dependencies on the plugin)? That, it seems to me, would satisfy most of the participants in this thread +1 that's what the original solution for YUM was until it was moved from a plugin into the core, dnf itself belongs into that list (IMHO) because for the expierienced users like me it would be easy to donwload and install it as long as the system is bootable and RPM was not removed for many users it would be hard well, and by protecting DNF from get removed at the sime time you protect python, rpm and it's other low level dependencies implicitly that's also what yum does currently i don't want to take away the great power of root from anybody, as well as rm -rf / allows to override and just go ahead, i want just a basic protection from major mistakes mostly happening when you have no time and say yes once too often at 3:00 AM with deep regret signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Les Howell hlhow...@pacbell.net wrote on Mon 23 Jun 2014 20:04:56 CEST: On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 19:57 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Johannes Lips johannes.l...@gmail.com said: Well, yeah and everybody is reading the complete output of yum/dnf if it's trying to remove hundreds of packages? Well, yeah. First, if you think you are removing a leaf or minor package and the package manager lists 100+ dependent packages, you should take notice and perhaps re-think what you are trying to do. Second, if you decide you want to continue, you should look over the list of packages to be removed. Of course, but how fast can a small three letter work like yum or dnf can be overlooked? I don't really see any benefit of not implementing it, if it makes an installation safer. But this whole discussion is pointless, because the people, who do the work will most likely decide the outcome! If people really want some magic protections in this case, rather than having special packages, it should probably be based on the number of affected dependent packages (and/or maybe a percentage of installed packages). The good news is that for dnf you can become a developer and then work from the group to make it do what you want. I am sure that your experience and knowledge will be a welcome addition to the team. What's the point of personal insults? I just stated my opinion, no need to get personal with ironic comments! -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 20:21 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: Les Howell hlhow...@pacbell.net wrote on Mon 23 Jun 2014 20:04:56 CEST: On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 19:57 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Johannes Lips johannes.l...@gmail.com said: Well, yeah and everybody is reading the complete output of yum/dnf if it's trying to remove hundreds of packages? Well, yeah. First, if you think you are removing a leaf or minor package and the package manager lists 100+ dependent packages, you should take notice and perhaps re-think what you are trying to do. Second, if you decide you want to continue, you should look over the list of packages to be removed. Of course, but how fast can a small three letter work like yum or dnf can be overlooked? I don't really see any benefit of not implementing it, if it makes an installation safer. But this whole discussion is pointless, because the people, who do the work will most likely decide the outcome! If people really want some magic protections in this case, rather than having special packages, it should probably be based on the number of affected dependent packages (and/or maybe a percentage of installed packages). The good news is that for dnf you can become a developer and then work from the group to make it do what you want. I am sure that your experience and knowledge will be a welcome addition to the team. What's the point of personal insults? I just stated my opinion, no need to get personal with ironic comments! I didn't mean it to be ironic. You really can contribute. Regards, Les 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 06/23/2014 11:51 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. You present it as simple, but it's really trickier than you imply for several reasons. We discussed several special cases, which you must have missed so let me recall those for your benefit. First, the dependencies. Updates often involve chains of those, and I've seen cases, e.g. caused by a require bugs, where suddenly some system libraries end up scheduled for removal, dragging along tons of dependent packages. Yes, 'yum update' will then ask for confirmation, but it just isn't scalable---the equivalent of 'yum -y update' must be reliable and recoverable even if things go wobbly. Second, kernel updates deleting all old kernels can delete the only running kernel. You can't just say don't ship broken kernel upgrades because it's a per-system problem---new ones work for most people but if you are the unlucky person for whom it doesn't work, you are in a bind: - you must upgrade because otherwise you will never get a fix - you can't upgrade because it'll delete the only running kernel, and the new one might not work It just makes a lot of sense to identify and protect a subset of packages whose removal is potentially irreversible. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
First of all thank you for your reasoned response. I simply disagree. I understand the fact about require bugs, and the tons of dependent packages. I've seen that also when I've tried to remove a package and noticed it had a myriad of dependencies which would also be removed. However, when I see this, I simply respond N when I'm asked if it is OK to proceed. I also cringe when I see the -y or --assumeyes option mentioned. IMO that is just inviting disaster. I'm surprised no one is demanding that be removed. It is dangerous. Regarding your kernel comment, I've been using Fedora since Redhat 6.2 and DNF since it first came out and I've never encountered this. When I update the kernel, it leaves the prior two on my system for rollback, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, if you manually enter dnf remove kernel it will come back with a list of all your installed kernels, but again, you have to tell it YES to proceed. That said, my concern is that valuable developer time be devoted to something which basically is to assist a small fraction of people who are careless, can't be bothered to read or both. On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: On 06/23/2014 11:51 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. You present it as simple, but it's really trickier than you imply for several reasons. We discussed several special cases, which you must have missed so let me recall those for your benefit. First, the dependencies. Updates often involve chains of those, and I've seen cases, e.g. caused by a require bugs, where suddenly some system libraries end up scheduled for removal, dragging along tons of dependent packages. Yes, 'yum update' will then ask for confirmation, but it just isn't scalable---the equivalent of 'yum -y update' must be reliable and recoverable even if things go wobbly. Second, kernel updates deleting all old kernels can delete the only running kernel. You can't just say don't ship broken kernel upgrades because it's a per-system problem---new ones work for most people but if you are the unlucky person for whom it doesn't work, you are in a bind: - you must upgrade because otherwise you will never get a fix - you can't upgrade because it'll delete the only running kernel, and the new one might not work It just makes a lot of sense to identify and protect a subset of packages whose removal is potentially irreversible. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:07 PM, drago01 wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low You still did not give a simple case why someone with some sanity left would do yum remove rpm or yum remove yum ... that makes no sense. Of course it doesn't make sense. Accidents happen. Let me help you answering your question. Why is there a protection for rm -fr? It might come handy when you use rm in a script and its argument is some variable that accidentally resolves to / Or perhaps you were typing rm -fr /path/to/bad/file but your pinky accidentally hit ENTER at the wrong time. Now you should be able to think of simple cases for yum or rpm yourself. :) Orcan -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Jun 23, 2014 4:55 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: First of all thank you for your reasoned response. I simply disagree. I understand the fact about require bugs, and the tons of dependent packages. I've seen that also when I've tried to remove a package and noticed it had a myriad of dependencies which would also be removed. However, when I see this, I simply respond N when I'm asked if it is OK to proceed. I also cringe when I see the -y or --assumeyes option mentioned. IMO that is just inviting disaster. I'm surprised no one is demanding that be removed. It is dangerous. Regarding your kernel comment, I've been using Fedora since Redhat 6.2 and DNF since it first came out and I've never encountered this. When I update the kernel, it leaves the prior two on my system for rollback, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, if you manually enter dnf remove kernel it will come back with a list of all your installed kernels, but again, you have to tell it YES to proceed. That said, my concern is that valuable developer time be devoted to something which basically is to assist a small fraction of people who are careless, can't be bothered to read or both. On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: On 06/23/2014 11:51 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. You present it as simple, but it's really trickier than you imply for several reasons. We discussed several special cases, which you must have missed so let me recall those for your benefit. First, the dependencies. Updates often involve chains of those, and I've seen cases, e.g. caused by a require bugs, where suddenly some system libraries end up scheduled for removal, dragging along tons of dependent packages. Yes, 'yum update' will then ask for confirmation, but it just isn't scalable---the equivalent of 'yum -y update' must be reliable and recoverable even if things go wobbly. Second, kernel updates deleting all old kernels can delete the only running kernel. You can't just say don't ship broken kernel upgrades because it's a per-system problem---new ones work for most people but if you are the unlucky person for whom it doesn't work, you are in a bind: - you must upgrade because otherwise you will never get a fix - you can't upgrade because it'll delete the only running kernel, and the new one might not work It just makes a lot of sense to identify and protect a subset of packages whose removal is potentially irreversible. -- So, there are actually two overlapping discussions here: - upstream features - distribution defaults for protected packages We can talk about them at the same time *here* because the upstream developers also happen to maintain the distribution package. Nobody around here likes to mandate other people do work, so we often say this is upstream's choice, we can't force them to do anything. That's how it should be, and the way the dnf developers are reaching out for feedback is an admirable exception to the rule. (So please, don't pull the upstream's discretion card on people who participate in an open, invited discussion) The other side of the coin is distribution defaults. Would Fedora use dnf without the ability to define protected packages? Maybe, some seem to like that, some say we have no other choice. Would any other distro take on such a casually destructive solution for their default? Not so likely. That said, it is clear that people have different opinions on the ideal behavior of dnf, and future adopting distros will be the same. The dnf developers are doing a commendable job allowing for everyone to be accommodated via the plugin structure. The Fedora community is doing a good job of communicating expectations, and upstream is listening. The dnf threads lately are great examples of collaboration we could be proud of. ... Except for the unnecessarily tense disagreements between Fedora voices. That's not the point I started out to make, but damn does it ever taint a good thing. Anyway, Jan company, I think it would be great if protected package functionality were available for those who chose to use it, whether that's Fesco, some other distro, or an admin out in the wild. I know a few people with root passwords to machines where I wouldn't ask them to even dust the thing unless times were desperate... --Pete -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Tim, Is there anyone working on a protected packages plugin for Dnf? In the past, it has helped users avoid trashing their systems due to bugs in package-cleanup and so on. So it is not just the command line users of the direct tools we need to be concerned about. Don't think so, Don't even remember if anyone has even made an RFE for such a plugin, if not somebody should proberly make one :) Tim -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 22.06.2014 08:18, schrieb Tim Lauridsen: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com mailto:methe...@gmail.com wrote: Is there anyone working on a protected packages plugin for Dnf? In the past, it has helped users avoid trashing their systems due to bugs in package-cleanup and so on. So it is not just the command line users of the direct tools we need to be concerned about. Don't think so, Don't even remember if anyone has even made an RFE for such a plugin, if not somebody should proberly make one :) the DNF developes don't care https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/444565.html however, that is something for QA/Fesco to not allow replace YUM as long there are such regressions and from the users point of view it's a rgeression: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On 22 June 2014 00:18, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Tim, Is there anyone working on a protected packages plugin for Dnf? In the past, it has helped users avoid trashing their systems due to bugs in package-cleanup and so on. So it is not just the command line users of the direct tools we need to be concerned about. Don't think so, Don't even remember if anyone has even made an RFE for such a plugin, if not somebody should proberly make one :) Where should the RFE be filed? Tim -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote: Where should the RFE be filed? Bugzilla againt dnf or dnf-plugins-core Tim -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 09:18:24AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: Is there anyone working on a protected packages plugin for Dnf? In the past, it has helped users avoid trashing their systems due to bugs in package-cleanup and so on. So it is not just the command line users of the direct tools we need to be concerned about. Don't think so, Don't even remember if anyone has even made an RFE for such a plugin, if not somebody should proberly make one :) Where should the RFE be filed? This isn't for a plugin, but as a core feature: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955673 As previously noted, the yum functionality was originally a plugin but then adopted as core feature. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
HI On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: This isn't for a plugin, but as a core feature: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955673 As previously noted, the yum functionality was originally a plugin but then adopted as core feature. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Yes, I filed it but it was pretty quickly rejected. I am wondering if there is openness to implementing this atleast as a plugin or will the decision be reconsidered if enough votes aka cc can be garnered? Rahul -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
I think there are much more important things to be concerned about than: 1. Childproofing software. 2. Writing software to protect against software bugs. DNF already requires that you have root privileges, in addition to requiring you to answer Yes to apply changes. Those safeguards are more than sufficient. Additional requirements above and beyond that are redundant and actually become a nuisance for those who RTFM. As far as the bug issue, that is an ad hominem justification. The owner of DNF has appropriately rejected this... move on. On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: HI On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: This isn't for a plugin, but as a core feature: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955673 As previously noted, the yum functionality was originally a plugin but then adopted as core feature. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Yes, I filed it but it was pretty quickly rejected. I am wondering if there is openness to implementing this atleast as a plugin or will the decision be reconsidered if enough votes aka cc can be garnered? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
that is a joke - DNF even allows to remove libraries with recursive dependencies uninstall the complete operating system not only the running kernel nobody can seriously argue that this is a acceptable behavior to replace yum and the developers decided so shows once more that recent Fedora decisions are selfish and only pretend to care about users while not care frankly even a packaging error or a unexpierienced user tryies to solve dependency problems easily leads to a destroyed system that way [root@rawhide ~]# dnf remove pcre Failed loading plugin: copr Dependencies resolved. Package Arch Version Repository Size Removing: acl x86_64 2.2.52-5.fc21 @System 185 k attr x86_64 2.4.47-7.fc21 @System 158 k audit-libs x86_64 2.3.7-2.fc21 @System 201 k autogen-libopts x86_64 5.18.3-2.fc21 @System 141 k basesystem noarch 10.0-10.fc21 @System 0 bash x86_64 4.3.18-2.fc21 @System 6.8 M bash-completion noarch 1:2.1-5.fc21 @System 764 k binutils x86_64 2.24-15.fc21 @System 20 M bzip2x86_64 1.0.6-12.fc21 @System 86 k bzip2-libs x86_64 1.0.6-12.fc21 @System 68 k ca-certificates noarch 2013.1.97-3.fc21 @System 1.0 M chkconfigx86_64 1.3.61-2.fc21 @System 725 k coreutilsx86_64 8.22-15.fc21 @System 14 M cpio x86_64 2.11-28.fc21 @System 673 k cracklib x86_64 2.9.1-3.fc21 @System 205 k cracklib-dicts x86_64 2.9.1-3.fc21 @System 9.0 M cronie x86_64 1.4.11-7.fc21 @System 211 k cronie-anacron x86_64 1.4.11-7.fc21 @System 41 k crontabs noarch 1.11-8.20130830git.fc21 @System 3.6 k crypto-policies noarch 20140620-1.gitdac1524.fc21 @System 34 k cryptsetup-libs x86_64 1.6.4-3.fc21 @System 679 k curl x86_64 7.37.0-2.fc21 @System 514 k cyrus-sasl-lib x86_64 2.1.26-17.fc21 @System 386 k dbus x86_64 1:1.8.4-2.fc21 @System 874 k dbus-libsx86_64 1:1.8.4-2.fc21 @System 299 k deltarpm x86_64 3.6-5.fc21 @System 210 k device-mapperx86_64 1.02.85-5.fc21 @System 183 k device-mapper-libs x86_64 1.02.85-5.fc21 @System 254 k diffutilsx86_64 3.3-7.fc21 @System 1.0 M dnf noarch 0.5.2-2.fc21 @System 2.4 M dnf-plugins-core noarch 0.1.0-3.fc21 @System 115 k dracut x86_64 037-13.git20140402.fc21 @System 858 k e2fsprogsx86_64 1.42.10-3.fc21 @System
Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Hi On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: Just run rm -rf / as root, it is much faster way to remove your os ;-) dnf does what you tell it to do and ask for your confirmation, it is not it's job to protect you from doing stupid things with all kind of stupid logics. As many others had said, a gun don't protect you for shooting yourself in foot. Tim, Is there anyone working on a protected packages plugin for Dnf? In the past, it has helped users avoid trashing their systems due to bugs in package-cleanup and so on. So it is not just the command line users of the direct tools we need to be concerned about. Rahul -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( Thank you. No one likes trolling. It should be obvious that if you start removing packages you should understand what you are doing. To run DNF, you first have to have root authority - which should be the first red flag. Second, when you enter a command to remove a package and it comes back and lists hundreds of dependencies it is also going to remove, that should be enough of a nudge for the prudent person to reply N. You can't stop people from being careless by asking them again if they are really, really sure. If they go ahead and destroy their system and have to re-install, maybe that will be a sufficient deterrent to keep them from doing it again. Just like telling a child not to touch a hot surface... some listen and the ones that don't get burned. -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
While dnf itself might want to stay pure and do as commanded, maybe for fedora there should be a default plugin that adds some protection for the regular users? On 21 June 2014 18:02, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( Thank you. No one likes trolling. It should be obvious that if you start removing packages you should understand what you are doing. To run DNF, you first have to have root authority - which should be the first red flag. Second, when you enter a command to remove a package and it comes back and lists hundreds of dependencies it is also going to remove, that should be enough of a nudge for the prudent person to reply N. You can't stop people from being careless by asking them again if they are really, really sure. If they go ahead and destroy their system and have to re-install, maybe that will be a sufficient deterrent to keep them from doing it again. Just like telling a child not to touch a hot surface... some listen and the ones that don't get burned. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
You can't child proof the world. On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Naheem Zaffar naheemzaf...@gmail.com wrote: While dnf itself might want to stay pure and do as commanded, maybe for fedora there should be a default plugin that adds some protection for the regular users? On 21 June 2014 18:02, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( Thank you. No one likes trolling. It should be obvious that if you start removing packages you should understand what you are doing. To run DNF, you first have to have root authority - which should be the first red flag. Second, when you enter a command to remove a package and it comes back and lists hundreds of dependencies it is also going to remove, that should be enough of a nudge for the prudent person to reply N. You can't stop people from being careless by asking them again if they are really, really sure. If they go ahead and destroy their system and have to re-install, maybe that will be a sufficient deterrent to keep them from doing it again. Just like telling a child not to touch a hot surface... some listen and the ones that don't get burned. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 21.06.2014 19:02, schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com mailto:tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( Thank you. No one likes trolling. no one likes broken software replacing working one It should be obvious that if you start removing packages you should understand what you are doing bullshit - try the same with yum that's how i learned to find out which packages are working together over the years by simply try to uninstall them and even package-cleanup --leaves --all don't list all packages you can remove *safely* signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 21.06.2014 18:23, schrieb Tim Lauridsen: Just run rm -rf / as root, it is much faster way to remove your os ;-) dnf does what you tell it to do and ask for your confirmation, it is not it's job to protect you from doing stupid things with all kind of stupid logics. bullshit that even can happen by broken packages As many others had said, a gun don't protect you for shooting yourself in foot. Error: Trying to remove systemd, which is protected Error: Trying to remove yum, which is protected You should properly stop wasting everybodys time and get on with something useful, I think everybody has figured out by now that you don't like how dnf works until today i was not aware that it is *that broken* at all it dont add anything new, by saying the same stuff again again. many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( than Fedora devleopers should stop propose replace wroking things with broken and dangerous ones - period signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Its reasonable to follow industry practices in regards to safety. To remove a common safety and require humans to be intelligent all of the time is an excellent way to introduce (more) chaos into the system. Sounds like an off-list discussion needs to take place. -Phillip On 6/21/14 12:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: You can't child proof the world. On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Naheem Zaffar naheemzaf...@gmail.com mailto:naheemzaf...@gmail.com wrote: While dnf itself might want to stay pure and do as commanded, maybe for fedora there should be a default plugin that adds some protection for the regular users? On 21 June 2014 18:02, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us mailto:gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com mailto:tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( Thank you. No one likes trolling. It should be obvious that if you start removing packages you should understand what you are doing. To run DNF, you first have to have root authority - which should be the first red flag. Second, when you enter a command to remove a package and it comes back and lists hundreds of dependencies it is also going to remove, that should be enough of a nudge for the prudent person to reply N. You can't stop people from being careless by asking them again if they are really, really sure. If they go ahead and destroy their system and have to re-install, maybe that will be a sufficient deterrent to keep them from doing it again. Just like telling a child not to touch a hot surface... some listen and the ones that don't get burned. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 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 even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
Am 21.06.2014 19:57, schrieb Phillip T. George: Its reasonable to follow industry practices in regards to safety. To remove a common safety and require humans to be intelligent all of the time is an excellent way to introduce (more) chaos into the system. Sounds like an off-list discussion needs to take place. Fedora perfers to throw away that existing safety and sell after enough damage has happened and enough users complained the comeback of that safety as new feature for Fesora 24/25, that's hwat happens with all the new improved replacments, only too few people remember that many of the follow-up improvements worked years before and got killed by making things better surely, 5 years after DNF repladed YUM you can got out and propose that the new DNF version improves things by prevent such damage but accept that users with expierence over years will laugh about that and refer to some of my posts! smart development would not gave me a single reason to complain about such basics ignored and even close bugreports Second, when you enter a command to remove a package and it comes back and lists hundreds of dependencies is *censored* - df remove rpm-libs don't list hundrets of packages - have fun to recover a system if someone uninstalelled rpm - have fun asking the user why he did say yes and confirmed it the user will tell you because such damage was not possible in the past and some arrogant developers sold steps backward in the development as a improvement On 6/21/14 12:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: You can't child proof the world. On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Naheem Zaffar naheemzaf...@gmail.com mailto:naheemzaf...@gmail.com wrote: While dnf itself might want to stay pure and do as commanded, maybe for fedora there should be a default plugin that adds some protection for the regular users? On 21 June 2014 18:02, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us mailto:gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com mailto:tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( Thank you. No one likes trolling. It should be obvious that if you start removing packages you should understand what you are doing. To run DNF, you first have to have root authority - which should be the first red flag. Second, when you enter a command to remove a package and it comes back and lists hundreds of dependencies it is also going to remove, that should be enough of a nudge for the prudent person to reply N. You can't stop people from being careless by asking them again if they are really, really sure. If they go ahead and destroy their system and have to re-install, maybe that will be a sufficient deterrent to keep them from doing it again. Just like telling a child not to touch a hot surface... some listen and the ones that don't get burned. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
