dnf versus yum

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:56:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matthew Miller (mattdm at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> > I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected
> > packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check the
> > man page. It says:
> > 
> >   protected_packages  This  is  a list of packages that yum should
> >   never completely remove. They are  protected  via  Obsoletes  as
> >   well as user/plugin removals.
> > 
> >   The  default  is:  yum  glob:/etc/yum/protected.d/*.conf  So any
> >   packages which should be protected can do so by including a file
> >   in /etc/yum/protected.d with their package name in it.
> > 
> >   Also  if  this  configuration  is set to anything, then yum will
> >   protect the package corresponding to the running version of  the
> >   kernel.
> 
> While documented, I do find this last bit of behavior extremely odd and
> non-intuitive. (And hardcoded, no less.)
> 
<nod>  Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the kernel
rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to protect
something else.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140108/b5714691/attachment.sig>