dnf versus yum
h.reindl at thelounge.net
Sun Jan 5 18:21:18 UTC 2014
Am 05.01.2014 19:07, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 10:27 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
>>> 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?),
>> They didn't. Both work on both.
> It's symptomatic of how fucking terrible this thread is, btw, that
> people would post without checking any of this. It takes about ten
> seconds to open a kernel and run 'yum remove foo', 'yum erase foo', 'dnf
> remove foo', 'dnf erase foo'. If you're not going to go to *that* much
> trouble, it's a bit rich to start excoriating the dnf devs
*that* and other things missing are example why this thread is not
terrible or useless and as you have seen the cache is coming back
which was declared as "useless" by DNF developers before this
honestly i am *not* testing DNF *because currently* it lacks obviously
features which makes it a no-go replacement for my envirnonments and
*the main reason* for this thread was push it in a direction where
it makes sense for me to have it on my testserver, even risk a dist-upgrade
on a VM and give feeback/karma for updates - as said - ASAP and not too
late to get things fine before it really claims to replace YUM
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the devel