dnf versus yum

Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosowski at nist.gov
Thu Jan 9 21:16:02 UTC 2014

On 01/09/2014 01:58 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
> Latest installed is almost exactly not what you want, I've had plenty
> (where plenty in this case is probably >5) of cases where a kernel
> update broke something, in quite a few of those cases to a state where
> the system wouldn't boot. If the most recent one is retained then
> you've still got a kernel, but not one that will actually run. With
> current behaviour I can still let my system update until a fix appears
> because I know it won't remove the good kernel. If updates can remove
> the running kernel then you have to watch each one carefully.
Right, so if you run into a situation where you need to run an old 
kernel-0.99, you'd protect it
with /etc/yum/protected.d/kernel-0.99.conf , assuming that yum allows 
specifying package version as well as the name.

By the way, currently the protected list seems to be  'yum, systemd and 
running kernel'. I don't have a system to try it on, so I just hope that 
one can't delete their dependencies either (glibc? what else?). I think 
you can still brick the system with careless yum erases: for instance, 
deleting grub/.

/That's why I like the approach of explicitly protecting against removal 
via .conf files---even though I don't see how to preserve the protection 
of the currently running kernel in this scheme.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140109/5e98aac8/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list