dnf versus yum
awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Jan 10 19:41:03 UTC 2014
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 16:16 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> 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
No, you can't. Any operation that results in the removal of a protected
package is rejected.
> I think you can still brick the system with careless yum erases: for
> instance, deleting grub.
Ooh, fun experiment. Let's see.
yum happily lets me remove grub2, but I don't think it breaks
boot: /boot/grub2/grub.cfg still exists after the removal, and it won't
have deleted the copy in the MBR. I'll see what happens when I reboot.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
More information about the devel