F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF

Reindl Harald h.reindl at thelounge.net
Sat Jun 14 14:56:01 UTC 2014

Am 14.06.2014 16:39, schrieb Haïkel Guémar:
> Le 14/06/2014 15:59, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>> what eactly is broken in the CLI?
> I'll chose an example you care about: protected packages.
> You pretend that DNF maintainers refused to support that, but actually, the answer is that they think it should be
> implemented as a plugin. I agree with you, most of the time, removing the running kernel is stupid but they are use
> cases where it makes sense. DNF maintainers felt that it should not be in core because it clutters the code and is
> restrictive for users.

restrictive for users?
the 1 out of a million can use "rpm -e"

> A smarter move would be to (kindly) request that such plugin is written and enabled by default in F22.

a smarter way would have been write such plugin instead
close the bugreport

>> that must be why "dnf remove kernel" kills your system
> If I give you a riffle, and then you willingly shot yourself in the foot, don't complain

that is somehow different than replace the package-manager with a riffle

Am 14.06.2014 16:32, schrieb drago01:
>> "dnf remove yum dnf kernel" ruins your system
>> yum don't allow that for good reasons
>> that's unacepptable behavior and was refused to change
> I can list a tons of commands that "ruins your system" ...
> While I might understand why use "yum remove kernel" (to remove
> everything but the running kernel) the other commands do not make
> sense.
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda also "ruins the system" ... -> strawman

the strawman is on your side

* dd's job is to write raw data
* the package managers job is help to maintain a machine
  and ruin it - especially if it did not many years before
  by doing exactly the same

>> dnf needs much more RAM currently while the feature page
>> pretends it has a smaller footprint - so it's not ready
>> or the feature page is a "would nice to be" not backed
>> by the reality
> Or maybe there is a bug (memory leak)? Did you file one?

i know the answer: nobody runs a system with 192 MB and it
don't fullfill the Fedora minimum requirements so we don't
care really because it works faster the way it works

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140614/c2487887/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list