dnf versus yum

[Lars E. Pettersson]

On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
> They really want to make dnf work this way.
> This is explained here:
> http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html#dnf-erase-kernel-deletes-all-packages-called-kernel

Yes, I have read that, but (strongly) disagree.

The running kernel should not be removed with a simple 'dnf erase 
kernel' (why did they change remove into erase?), a better solution 
would be to safe guard the running kernel, only removing it if you 
explicitly ask for it:

$ uname -a
Linux tux 3.12.6-300.fc20.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Dec 23 16:44:31 UTC 2013 
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ dnf erase kernel-3.12.6-300.fc20.x86_64

The same thing could be said about other packages now protected in yum. 
Please protect them in the same way in dnf.

Lars
-- 
Lars E. Pettersson <lars at homer.se>
http://www.sm6rpz.se/