Adam Williamson writes:
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 23:54 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> * As a general workaround for this type of crashes, we need a
> > complete-transaction command in DNF – please add your voices to:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091702
> > – and not the sledgehammer approach of doing all updates offline.
> CLOSED/WONTFIX since 2014. No comment.
Except there is a comment. This is what Ales wrote when closing the
"Closign this as WONTFIX with a vote, i.e. once enough people are CCed
in the bug, we will see about adding this."
IOW, he didn't exactly mean WONTFIX. So, if you want that feature
That's fair enough.
But I'm still waiting for a logical explanation why setsid() plus
sigaction() for selected signal won't be, at least, an interim fix, insofar
as preventing a failed install due to an X crashing for some reason, due to
a bad scriptlet, or something.
The only proposed explanation is that you still won't immediately know if
the transaction is still running or not; without a clear explanation why
ps(1) will be insufficient to make that determination. And, of course,
implicit in that argument is that setsid()+sigaction() *will* be sufficient
and that's just a different problem to solve. But just because the second
problem needs a different solution doesn't mean that the first problem
cannot be solved.