dnf versus yum
dridi.boukelmoune at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 13:50:52 UTC 2014
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
> 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
>> While documented, I do find this last bit of behavior extremely odd and
>> non-intuitive. (And hardcoded, no less.)
> There should just be a separate protect_running_kernel boolean option, which
> would default to the above odd behavior for compatibility if not set (but
> explicitly setting it to either 1 or 0 would override that either way).
Can't the kernel package itself do that ?
I'm thinking about the %preun section (maybe %pretrans ?) where the
package would know it's being removed, and could find out whether it's
the running kernel.
One might also want to build a distribution on top of yum/rpm but
choose a different name for the kernel package like "linux" or
> Kevin Kofler
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
More information about the devel