<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/09/2014 01:58 PM, Ian Malone
wrote:</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL3-7MqiSUZEBiHOMSJLkdcCH15Ci+qNF-gDSNyCwdM38DogSg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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 one is retained then
you've still got a kernel, but not one that will actually run. With
current behaviour I can still let my system update until a fix appears
because I know it won't remove the good kernel. If updates can remove
the running kernel then you have to watch each one carefully.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Right, so if you run into a situation where you need to run an old
kernel-0.99, you'd protect it <br>
with /etc/yum/protected.d/kernel-0.99.conf , assuming that yum
allows specifying package version as well as the name.<br>
<br>
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?). I think you can still brick the system with careless yum
erases: for instance, deleting grub<i>. <br>
<br>
</i>That's why I like the approach of explicitly protecting against
removal via .conf files---even though I don't see how to preserve
the protection of the currently running kernel in this scheme.<br>
<i><br>
</i>
</body>
</html>