On 10/04/2016 01:20 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 10/04/2016 12:51 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2016 12:06 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 2016 8:52 AM, "Adam Williamson"
>>> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
>>>> Recently several reports of people getting 'duplicated packages'
>>>> 'kernel updates not working' have come through to us in QA from
>>>> 24 users. I managed to get one reporter to explain more specifically
>>>> what happened, and it sounds a lot like what's happening is that
>>>> something in the 'dnf update' process can cause a GNOME or X
>>>> possibly depending on hardware or package set installed. When that
>>>> happens, the update process is killed and does not complete cleanly,
>>>> which is why you get 'duplicated packages' and other odd
>>> How hard would it be to make dnf do the rpm transaction inside a proper
>>> system-level service (transient or otherwise)? This would greatly increase
>>> robustness against desktop crashes, ssh connection loss, KillUserProcs, and
>>> other damaging goofs.
>> That seems like a waste of effort, considering we have the offline updates
>> process which just boots into a special, minimalist environment with almost
>> nothing but the updater running.
> 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.
> 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.
sudo pkcon refresh force && \
sudo pkcon update --only-download && \
sudo pkcon offline-trigger **
sudo systemctl reboot
That "**" should have been "&& \"