On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com> wrote:

And really the bottom line is, dnf update is fine the vast majority of
the time, except when it isn't. Failures are somewhere in between a
bug and not at all surprising. And people have been working hard on
solving this for years.

Chris, first of all thanks much for posting the links. They basically reinforced my opinion. I have no issue whatsoever with

"offline" updates. It is of course a valid approach to a problem. My concern was that the blanket implication about the safety

of using DNF within a DE. Even your comment that it is "fine... until it isn't" (which can be said about anything) proves the point.

Packagekit... is "safe until it isn't" - refer to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865

which by the way caused me a bunch of grief because on a lark one day I decided to try it out... sucks to be me I guess.

If offline updates have a place (and yes I believe they do) then why isn't that functionality built into DNF now? I would assume (and

yes, I know what happens when people ASS-U-ME - ;-) ) that it is because the DNF team doesn't believe the risk/benefit ratio is

high enough to put it in yet and they believe other features/functionality are more beneficial.

That said, they basically already do it with the dnf-system-upgrade plugin; so why not just expand

that a bit. Also, while i completely understand that it is much easier to just use a sledgehammer and say "offline upgrades for everything" -

we both know that isn't required. Again, there is a place for "offline" updates - and I would like to see that option in DNF - but everything

has it's place.