OK, from now on when I see bugs causing serious real world consequences
for multiple real world reporters I'll just shut up and pretend it's
not happening, shall I? Wouldn't want to be all 'alarmist' about it.
Adam... those questions in my last message were rhetorical. I wasn't expecting an answer.
You're still missing my point.
I appreciate the fact that you took positive action in regards to the systemd/scriptlet bug. The
Issue I had was when you made the blanket statement in regards to running DNF. That was the
overreach. It was then compounded IMHO when you started the with the implication that the
GNOME model should be expanded into other DEs. As you yourself mentioned, you want to help people
with this bug - but you expanded that into a mini-crusade for "offline updates".
As Kevin pointed out, the best solution would be to give people the actual workaround.
I would consider the concept of "offline updates" to be a sea change in the mind of most Linux users.
I can imagine the press release:
"Ten Years in the making: Fedora develops innovative methodology for safer system updates: REBOOT"
Now of course that can be spun many different ways, but honestly you can guess how that is going to
play out in the twitter-verse.
As I mentioned several times, I do understand the value for "offline" updates. I also mentioned
that in the RFE Bug: A nice goal would be for DNF to be able to automatically recognize
which updates require a reboot and segregate them off for later processing while continuing with those
which are safe to do in an online environment. Many people are going to have an issue with reboot for
all updates - and as well they should. It just isn't necessary. Which is why I suggested it be added as an option,
at least until the logic to handle it automatically could be developed.
Regarding your comment about sharing history, etc. between DNF and PK, it is apparently being