dnf versus yum

[Ahmad Samir]

On 3 January 2014 04:32, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>> uhm "It has been disabled in Fedora and there has been no real use cases
>> indicated" says who and with what real world expierience? look above!
>
> They clearly haven't looked very far for use cases, indeed.
>
> Another important use case (and another reason why keepcache=1 should not
> only be supported, but IMHO even be the DEFAULT):
> * Say an update to NetworkManager or one of its dependencies breaks your
>   networking. (Maybe it's an unusual configuration that was missed during
>   testing.)
> * Even ignoring the issue of mirrors not keeping old updates (which I
>   already pointed out earlier in this thread), with networking not working,
>   you simply CANNOT go to a mirror, directly to Koji etc. to get a
>   downgrade. The ONLY place to get the old package from is your yum cache.
> * If this is not the first update to the package, you will definitely have
>   the previous (or at least another recent) update cached.
> * If this IS the first update to the package, if (like me) you used the
>   direct yum method to upgrade Fedora (and of course keepcache=1), you have
>   the GA package cached. I don't know how FedUp handles this, but if it
>   doesn't keep the cache, it should!
>
> In that situation, with keepcache=0, the installation is BRICKED! With
> keepcache=1, it can be fixed by downgrading the offending package from the
> cache (rpm -Uvh --oldpackage).
>
>         Kevin Kofler
>

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046244

> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct



-- 
Ahmad Samir