dnf versus yum
Lars E. Pettersson
lars at homer.se
Sun Jan 5 09:27:23 UTC 2014
On 01/05/2014 09:23 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
> They really want to make dnf work this way.
> This is explained here:
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 E. Pettersson <lars at homer.se>
More information about the devel