On 4 October 2016 at 15:00, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com>
> >Are we
> > Windows?
> Yes, we're Windows. Is that what you want to hear? I don't understand
> why you think this is a question to be taken seriously rather than
No, it was a rhetorical question. See my other response. Basically, IMHO
"solution" fails a simple risk/benefit analysis. Instead of dealing with
the root issue which
is error recovery it attempts to circumvent it at the expense of system
This problem is not easily solvable by dnf or yum or anything else.
You are standing on the branch of a tree. When you do an update you
are cutting off branches of a tree and growing new ones. Sometimes you
are cutting the trunk of the tree. The problem is that if you are
cutting your own branch or the tree trunk.. you are sunk.
The problem is that modern software has a lot of branches. The tree
looks like this
Maybe that branch you cut doesn't look like it has anything to do with
the one you are standing on.. but maybe it did and now you are hosed.
This has been a problem for as long as Red Hat Linux existed with a
remote shell and people would end up with crashed systems because sshd
died when an update was done. There were all kinds of 'hacks' to make
it work mostly but there were still conditions where you could crash
out your system. It also showed up every now and then on X updates
which could also be 'hacked' around but was still racy. As the tree
gets more complicated.. the more the hacks are moving from an 95%
solution to a 0.95 * 0.95 * 0.95 ... and ending up with it being a 60%
solution and just getting worse over time.
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Stephen J Smoogen.