On 4 October 2016 at 13:05, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:51:16 -0700
Andrew Lutomirski <luto(a)mit.edu> wrote:
> By that standard, why do we support dnf at all?
> $ sudo dnf upgrade
> Error: dnf upgrade is dangerous. Use PackageKit instead and reboot
> when asked.
> I, for one, *like* not rebooting, and I'm perfectly capable of
> rebooting manually if stuff breaks. As far as I know, Fedora
> considers plain ol' dnf to be supported.
Well, the problem there, what do you mean by 'support'?
In this case lots of people use dnf for updates, so IMHO it would be
"we will try and keep this working, and fix anything we can, but do
understand that there's a low level problem here that something could
mess up updates in progress, if you want to be more sure of not hitting
problems, use the offline updates in your graphical desktop"
> For server use, I'm not convinced that the offline update mechanism is
> supported (at the very least, I have no idea how to trigger it), and
> servers have the same issue.
Much less so. In the server case you have usually ssh, bash and dnf, in
the desktop case you have X, possibly wayland, tons of graphics
libraries, the terminal application you are using and all it's
libraries, and a shell and dnf. There's just a lot more there to
As a systems administrator, I am left with at least 2 different fail states:
1) I reboot the box and have no idea what is going on because it never
2) I run dnf update and I know it got to sshd or glibc when my
connection to the server went away.
In either case I am hosed and if I am running a cloud of servers..
hosed in scale (or hosed as a service?). The part we really want to do
is try and make it so if we are hosed.. how do we get it to be less
hosed? Because this is going to happen in any case in some form no
matter what.. when it does how do we recover in scale?
Stephen J Smoogen.