Fwd: Submission deadline for Changes of Fedora 23

Bruno Wolff III bruno at wolff.to
Fri Jun 26 17:55:33 UTC 2015

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 13:26:01 -0400,
  Will Woods <wwoods at redhat.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 11:32 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> Having done a few mass updates using DNF over the last few months, I
>> have
>> noticed that their depsolver handles complicated messes better than
>> yum did,
>> and can proceed with partial updates where yum used fail entirely.
>...that's really more about policy than any technical reason, though:
>DNF `upgrade` is roughly equivalent to `yum upgrade --skip-broken`.
>If you use `dnf upgrade --best` you get the yum default behavior, which
>will fail when there are broken deps - just like yum did.

yum update --skip-broken sometimes fails in complicated cases and dnf update 
doesn't seem to. I thought I had seen a direct comparison with 
yum-deprecated, but I think --skip-broken wasn't being used on that system 
by default. But given I have seen yum fail to do any updates when --skip-broken 
was used even though there were updatable packages (which I updated with yum 
by specifying a subset of packages) and I have not seen this happen with 
dnf, I do think that dnf update will work in some cases where yum --skip-broken 

I have been disappointed in dnf update --best --allowerasing, as there seems 
to be some limitations (that I haven't figured out) on what it will erase and 
I end up having to manually erase packages that are pinning old versions 
of libraries, to get stuff to update.

More information about the desktop mailing list