On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected
packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check
the
On 01/09/2014 07:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 22:16, schrieb Przemek Klosowski:
By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd and running
kernel'.
I don't have a system to try it on
what about the machine you sitting in front of?
without -y flag yum asks if
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune
dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's
Am 10.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Dridi Boukelmoune:
I actually remember a comparison matrix of OpenSolaris forks, some of
them chose /rpm5?/ for package management, but I can't find a link.
I do understand why people would want such features built-in, but it
seems a bit short-sighted. And by
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 16:16 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 01/09/2014 01:58 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
Latest installed is almost exactly not what you want, I've had plenty
(where plenty in this case is probably 5) of cases where a kernel
update broke something, in quite a few of those cases
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:41:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd
and running kernel'. I don't have a system to try it on, so I just
hope that one can't delete their dependencies either (glibc? what
else?).
No, you can't.
Am 10.01.2014 20:55, schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:41:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd
and running kernel'. I don't have a system to try it on, so I just
hope that one can't delete their dependencies
On Jan 10, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov
wrote:
On 01/09/2014 07:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 22:16, schrieb Przemek Klosowski:
I think you can still brick the system with careless yum erases: for
instance, deleting grub
how would this delete
Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com said:
nod Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the kernel
rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to protect
something else.
The magic don't delete the running kernel can't be done with just a
On Jan 7, 2014 4:53 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
It seems the majority
On 01/09/2014 03:56 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014 4:53 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com
mailto:frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
look like it starts to happen again:
On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com said:
nod Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the
kernel
rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to
protect
something else.
The
Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who
want this change to cc themselves on the bug report. If the cc reaches
40 he'll reconsider. Kinda a strange way of
On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who
want this change to cc themselves on the bug report. If the cc reaches
40
Am 09.01.2014 16:37, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who
want this change to cc
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:03:06 +0100
Jiri Moskovcak jmosk...@redhat.com wrote:
And what would be the right way to decide? And please stay assured
that this is not a trolling, I would really like to see some
agreement in Fedora on how to decide these kind of things.
As we always have I think...
On 01/09/2014 04:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 16:37, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:56:31 +0100
Jiri Moskovcak jmosk...@redhat.com wrote:
Well, I can use dnf in it's current shape quite fine and it works
faster than yum which I take as an improvement, so for me it's ok. So
what now?
--Jirka
Then add your voice to the bz to keep it as is.
On 9 January 2014 15:13, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com said:
nod Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the
kernel
rather than protecting the
Am 09.01.2014 19:58, schrieb Ian Malone:
On 9 January 2014 15:13, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com said:
nod Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects
On 01/09/2014 01:58 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
Latest installed is almost exactly not what you want, I've had plenty
(where plenty in this case is probably 5) of cases where a kernel
update broke something, in quite a few of those cases to a state where
the system wouldn't boot. If the most recent
Chris Adams wrote:
The rescue kernel is another option, right there on the boot menu; if
you actually removed all running kernels, it would be the _only_ Fedora
option (and the only option at all on a system without multiple OSes
installed, so booted by default).
Not going to happen here, I
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected
packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check
the man page. It says:
protected_packages This is a list of packages
Am 09.01.2014 22:16, schrieb Przemek Klosowski:
By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd and
running kernel'.
I don't have a system to try it on
what about the machine you sitting in front of?
without -y flag yum asks if you mean your input serious
so I just
On 01/05/2014 08:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
yum remove kernel is a clean and sane way to remove all but not the running
kernels
distribute-command.sh 'yum -y remove kernel' is used here for years on a ton
of machines
why do you think that a *replacement* should come up not support this?
why
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
Another point: it shouldn't be hardwired into the package manager but
rather result from package properties. I can see several ways to do it:
- an 'essentiality' property in the RPM file
- a yum/dnf
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:43:01PM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
hence that is why whatever calls itself a replacement for yum should *not*
support destroy the running system without whatever *force switch*
I don't like the weird partial functionality of this feature. It is
apparently
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected
packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check the
man page. It says:
protected_packages This is a list of packages that yum should
never
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:56:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected
packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check the
man page. It says:
Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
Since * remove kernel appears to be inspecific, removing all kernels
isn't what I'd expect. It's not how mv or cp or anything else would work.
So why not turn this around. In case somebody is doing dnf remove
kernel and dnf will figures out that
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:48:16 +0100
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
Since * remove kernel appears to be inspecific, removing all
kernels isn't what I'd expect. It's not how mv or cp or anything
else would work.
So why not turn this
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:48:16 +0100
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
Since * remove kernel appears to be inspecific, removing all
kernels isn't what I'd expect. It's not
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com wrote:
dnf remove kernel --all
I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should only remove
the latest kernel.
How do you make that out.
Have you ever used yum remove kernel
dnf remove kernel --all
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com wrote:
dnf remove kernel --all
I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should only remove
the latest kernel.
How do you
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:52:52 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry I don't understand your answer.
Dridi
I can't make it any simpler.
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:52:52 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry I don't understand your answer.
Dridi
I can't make it any simpler.
You could maybe explain what you meant in the
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:12:39 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry for misunderstanding a command that didn't come with a
single sentence.
dnf remove kernel --all
to remove all
What's to misunderstand
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing
On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't even remember I ever needed yum remove kernel. Does it mean that
yum remove kernel should not work at all no matter if it leaves running
kernel on the system or not? Or should it be completely prohibited? Why we
keep 3
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:12:39 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry for misunderstanding a command that didn't come with a
single sentence.
dnf remove kernel --all
to remove all
What's to
Dne 7.1.2014 10:52, Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com wrote:
dnf remove kernel --all
I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should
Dne 7.1.2014 11:34, Ian Malone napsal(a):
On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't even remember I ever needed yum remove kernel. Does it mean that
yum remove kernel should not work at all no matter if it leaves running
kernel on the system or not? Or should it
Am 07.01.2014 12:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch:
Dne 7.1.2014 11:34, Ian Malone napsal(a):
On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't even remember I ever needed yum remove kernel. Does it mean that
yum remove kernel should not work at all no matter if it leaves
On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:56:04 -0500
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
* yum remove kernel vs dnf remove kernel difference (unfiled? )
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
It seems the majority want the current dnf default [1] to be kept
Those who want to keep
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 03:52:00PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
Protected packages was first implemented * as a yum plugin because Seth
thought it was kind of crazy and shouldn't be core functionality, but then
it proved itself in real use and became built-in. Now, the DNF pages says
Similar
On 01/06/2014 08:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
...
If it exists for backward compatibility, it doesn't necessarily need to
be documented.
Ehh? Why? Could you elaborate?
I don't see
On 01/05/2014 07:24 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
Three documentation bugs out of a side track of a thread is not a
terrible thread, in my opinion...
Yum auto completion missing erase:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048714
dnf man page missing to mention remove:
Dne 5.1.2014 22:25, Till Maas napsal(a):
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 01:06:16PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel
Frankly, that's a dumb feature
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Also, even removing every kernel RPM will not render your system
non-recoverable. You can always use a boot CD, and in modern Fedora
systems, the rescue kernel/initramfs are never removed (not owned by
any RPM), so
On 01/06/2014 12:43 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Otherwise, I totally agree with Chris and with DNF upstream. dnf remove
kernel should remove every kernel and should not behave magically.
What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there
actually such a use case?
Lars
--
Lars E.
Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a):
On 01/06/2014 12:43 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Otherwise, I totally agree with Chris and with DNF upstream. dnf remove
kernel should remove every kernel and should not behave magically.
What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is
On 01/06/2014 02:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a):
...
What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there
actually such a use case?
Lars
Why are you asking? May be you should let your imagination run riot.
Why? Isn't that obvious? If
On 01/06/2014 03:32 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 02:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a):
...
What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there
actually such a use case?
Lars
Why are you asking? May be you should let your
Am 06.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch:
Also, I'd like to point out that yum/dnf remove by default shows what it is
going to do and you have to
explicitly confirm the action, isn't it enough? How much protection do you
need?
to say it clear - *all* protection to avoid breaking the
This discussion has now reached the phoronix point
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTU2MTE
Has anyone filed any tickets so we could move forward or will we continue
wasting time here ?
Best regards,
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Am 06.01.2014 15:39, schrieb Petr Viktorin:
On 01/06/2014 03:32 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 02:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a):
...
What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there
actually such a use case?
Lars
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se wrote:
On 01/06/2014 02:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 6.1.2014 13:31, Lars E. Pettersson napsal(a):
...
What would be the point in removing the running kernel? Is there
actually such a use case?
Lars
Why are you asking?
- Original Message -
Am 06.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch:
Also, I'd like to point out that yum/dnf remove by default shows what it
is going to do and you have to
explicitly confirm the action, isn't it enough? How much protection do you
need?
to say it clear - *all*
Am 06.01.2014 16:12, schrieb Tomas Mlcoch:
Am 06.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch:
Also, I'd like to point out that yum/dnf remove by default shows what it
is going to do and you have to
explicitly confirm the action, isn't it enough? How much protection do you
need?
to say it clear -
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:30:20 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04.01.2014 21:09, Adam Williamson wrote:
Because yum's code is a mess.
curl -s http://www.textfiles.com/art/monkey.vt
From Yum with Love.
poma
I don't think that helps
___
Regards,
Frank
On 04.01.2014 21:09, Adam Williamson wrote:
Because yum's code is a mess.
curl -s http://www.textfiles.com/art/monkey.vt
From Yum with Love.
poma
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 06.01.2014 16:32, Frank Murphy wrote:
I don't think that helps
Au contraire.
You should not run this command in the same way as dnf remove kernel.
Maybe we should write a plug-in to provide a safety mechanism!? :)
poma
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Congratulations for lowering the level of this discussion even lower than
it already was !
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 06.01.2014 16:50, H. Guémar wrote:
Congratulations for lowering the level of this discussion even lower than
it already was !
Au contraire.
Users Are Always Right!
Love It, Learn It!
poma
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 01/06/2014 05:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
...
The reason for me asking was that you accused me of excoriating the dnf
devs (a rather harsh accusation) just because I did not try
erase/remove. I looked at the documentation and used auto completion.
Why would I try a number of different
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:26 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 08:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
...
If it exists for backward compatibility, it doesn't necessarily need
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:22 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 05:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
...
The reason for me asking was that you accused me of excoriating the dnf
devs (a rather harsh accusation) just because I did not try
erase/remove. I looked at the documentation
On 01/06/2014 05:42 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's a nice theory. Sure. It's not a tenable basis on which to operate
in the real world of software. So if you want to argue that something
doesn't exist, check whether it exists. If you only check the
documentation, you're not checking the
On 5 January 2014 18:12, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
the ordianry user - i doubt
The ordinary user won't do yum erase kernel either, so that's moot.
The rescue kernel is another option, right there on the boot menu; if
you actually removed all running kernels, it would be the
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:38:46 -0700
Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
If an expert says no ordinary user would ever do a command, they
have not worked front line Tech Support recently enough.
aside: but true
User- can you replace my modem, it doesn't work
CSR: - can you do x,y,z .
On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2014 18:12, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
the ordianry user - i doubt
The ordinary user won't do yum erase kernel either, so that's moot.
The rescue kernel is another option, right there on
Il 05/01/2014 00:13, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 21:41 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2014-01-04 21:31, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/04/2014 08:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
* yum remove kernel vs dnf remove kernel difference (unfiled? )
I found 976704, closed with
Am 05.01.2014 09:23, schrieb Mattia Verga:
Il 05/01/2014 00:13, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 21:41 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2014-01-04 21:31, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/04/2014 08:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
* yum remove kernel vs dnf remove kernel
Am 05.01.2014 09:40, schrieb Reindl Harald:
They really want to make dnf work this way.
This is explained here:
http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel
and that is clearly a regression
how likely is that somebody want to delete
On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
They really want to make dnf work this way.
This is explained here:
http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel
Yes, I have read that, but (strongly) disagree.
The running kernel should not be
Il 05/01/2014 10:27, Lars E. Pettersson ha scritto:
Yes, I have read that, but (strongly) disagree.
I agree in your disagreement! ;-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se wrote:
On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
why did they change remove into erase?
Yum actually offers both erase and remove for the same purpose. I
don't know which is an alias of the other, but rpm uses erase.
From the
On 01/05/2014 12:02 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se wrote:
On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
why did they change remove into erase?
Yum actually offers both erase and remove for the same purpose. I
don't know which is
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:16:36 +0100
Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se wrote:
Ah, did not know that, if you try to auto complete yum only remove
shows up, but erase also works. So perhaps erase was an afterthought,
to mimic the rpm behavior. If rpm has erase, and yum also can use
erase, perhaps
Am 05.01.2014 12:21, schrieb Frank Murphy:
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:16:36 +0100
Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se wrote:
Ah, did not know that, if you try to auto complete yum only remove
shows up, but erase also works. So perhaps erase was an afterthought,
to mimic the rpm behavior. If rpm
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
They really want to make dnf work this way.
This is explained here:
http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel
Yes, I have read
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 12:34 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.01.2014 12:21, schrieb Frank Murphy:
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:16:36 +0100
Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se wrote:
Ah, did not know that, if you try to auto complete yum only remove
shows up, but erase also works. So perhaps
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
They really want to make dnf work this way.
This is explained here:
Am 05.01.2014 19:07, schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
They really want to make dnf work this way.
This is explained here:
On 01/05/2014 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
...
The running kernel should not be removed with a simple 'dnf erase
kernel' (why did they change remove into erase?),
They
On 01/05/2014 07:24 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
As I mentioned before I only auto completed yum, remove is not party of
the auto completed commands. If remove should be there, then this is a
bug. I will file one.
Pressed send a bit too early. Should of course be 'erase' here, not
A solution may be for someone to write a plugin that restores the
protected packages feature.
Fedora users are clearly used to such a feature and expect it while
upstream doesnt want to add hand holding features, but provide a
method to do the same.
On 5 January 2014 18:32, Lars E. Pettersson
Am 05.01.2014 20:06, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel
Frankly, that's a dumb feature to have the package manager know
magic things about some
On 01/04/2014 03:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 10:50 +0100, Mattia Verga wrote:
This is the first time I heard of DNF.
Looking at the page where differences between DNF and yum are
explained (http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html) my question
is: do we really need
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 01:06:16PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel
Frankly, that's a dumb feature to have the package manager know
magic
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
i say the same thing to the autopager and cutted output of
systemctl and journalctl and the repsonse there is we are
not Unix, we are Linux
Yeah, I dislike that as well. If I want paged output, I'll page it; if
I want cut output,
Am 05.01.2014 23:33, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
i say the same thing to the autopager and cutted output of
systemctl and journalctl and the repsonse there is we are
not Unix, we are Linux
Yeah, I dislike that as well. If I want paged
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
where would it be useful to uninstall base-package and YUM/DNF itself
bringing your system in a non-recoverable state?
I already offered a couple of examples that you ignored (just a couple
that came to mind, certainly not an
Am 05.01.2014 23:53, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
where would it be useful to uninstall base-package and YUM/DNF itself
bringing your system in a non-recoverable state?
I already offered a couple of examples that you ignored (just a
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 19:24 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/05/2014 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
...
The running kernel should not be removed with a simple 'dnf
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
border cases where you can use --nodeps
What does --nodeps have to do with this?
this is *really* a border case where download and rpm -Uvh --force
is the way to go
No, you should do it correctly. First, AFAIK rpm doesn't have the
Am 06.01.2014 02:12, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
border cases where you can use --nodeps
What does --nodeps have to do with this?
border cases are not usual behavior?
this is *really* a border case where download and rpm -Uvh --force
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 02:33 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.01.2014 02:12, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
border cases where you can use --nodeps
What does --nodeps have to do with this?
border cases are not usual behavior?
His
On 01/05/2014 11:53 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
where would it be useful to uninstall base-package and YUM/DNF itself
bringing your system in a non-recoverable state?
I already offered a couple of examples that you ignored (just a couple
On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 19:24 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
...
As I mentioned before I only auto completed yum, remove is not party of
the auto completed commands. If remove should be there, then this is a
bug. I will file one.
dnf has no auto
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
