dnf versus yum
a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Jan 9 15:13:20 UTC 2014
On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, "Chris Adams" <linux at cmadams.net> wrote:
> Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> said:
> > <nod> Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the
> > rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to
> > something else.
> The magic "don't delete the running kernel" can't be done with just a
> config file. Something has to detect which kernel version is running
> and match it to an RPM, and then protect just that version of multiple
> installed kernel RPMs.
Can't the meaning of a package name in the config file simply mean: "make
sure one of these packages is always installed"?
That won't protect the running kernel but it will protect a kernel
(probably the latest installed). That would seem to address hreindl's use
case of wanting to test on multiple systems and when satisfied that things
are working cleanup all older packages.
That would still be a difference from the current yum code but less than
not having any protection at all and would be more generic.
> I supposed you could do it external to yum/dnf with a boot-time script
> that rewrites a config file to protect kernel-$(uname -r), but that may
> not always work (it would have to handle things like kernel-PAE and
> Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel