dnf versus yum

Matthew Miller mattdm at fedoraproject.org
Thu Jan 2 20:52:00 UTC 2014


On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 03:21:37PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I agree with that and the kernel removal behavior isn't the only
> difference.  I mean, how often would one run dnf remove glibc on purpose
> and the significant amount of accidental runs of yum that caused serious
> problems resulted in yum developers adding some protection against removing
> key packages.  dnf changing this expected behavior is problem and clearly
> this is a design decision which I think needs to revisited.
> http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#protected-packages-is-ignored

This one is clearly one of those "doomed to repeat history" things in
motion.

Protected packages was first implemented * as a yum plugin because Seth
thought it was kind of crazy and shouldn't be core functionality, but then
it proved itself in real use and became built-in. Now, the DNF pages says
"Similar functionality can be implemented by a plugin", putting us right
back where we were. **




* originally as a feature for BU Linux :)
** well, except that I don't have an intern interested in writing the plugin
 this time around. Volunteers welcome!

-- 
Matthew Miller  --  Fedora Project Architect --  <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>


More information about the devel mailing list