dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings
jaroslav at hackerspace.pl
Mon Jun 23 17:21:07 UTC 2014
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 23.06.2014 18:47, schrieb Chris Adams:
>> Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> said:
>>> Try yum update when the oldest installed kernel (and the running
>>> kernel) is the only one that works and there is a new (still broken
>>> for your system) kernel update available. In that case one really
>>> wouldn't expect the running kernel be removed. Having to remove a
>>> specific kernel before doing an update (to make sure the wrong one
>>> wasn't removed) would be a pain.
>> I guess I never considered it a pain. That's exactly what I would do if
>> I knew a particular kernel was broken (remove specifically the broken
>> kernel). I never knew yum/a yum plugin/whatever did "magic" stuff based
>> on the running kernel, trying to remove "special" packages like yum,
> be glad that you learned something new :-)
>> I have no problem with GUI tools having magic protections built in, but
>> I prefer CLI tools that don't try to out-think me. yum/dnf already asks
>> for confirmation (which is more than up2date did); having additional
>> layers of protection/confirmation/whatever built-in seems excessive to
> in general - agreed
> but not if it comes to destory the complete setup
>> It looks like there isn't even a way to override this behavior in yum.
>> I haven't wanted to remove all the kernels in a while (I guess since
>> before this was added); is the only way to bypass yum and use rpm?
> yes - simply because the chance that soemone wants to uninstall all
> kernels, yum, dnf and finalyl rpm itself is very low
Indeed. But that's why yum / dnf displays you the whole transaction and
asks you to *confirm*.
For me it is a totally reasonable and sane approach. If you claim there
are people who won't read the list of to-be-removed packages and blindly
hit *Y* - well, I belive you are right - there are such people. But we
won't stop them from hurting themselves, sooner or later.
If you think the 'confirmation required' dialog is not enough - please
create a plugin for dnf, and make a feature request for its inclusion.
Then at least the discussion is productive.
> the same applies to "rm -rf /" which is also protected and
> can be overriden with a CLI switch - for the same reason:
> it's hardly what the user really wanted to do
Exactly. System warns you, but if you insist, it will allow you to "rm
-rf /". The same is with dnf. It will show you the list of packages it's
going to remove, and ask you if you are sure this is what you want. What
more do we need?
I hate when my OS tries to be smarten than me.
So, if the command "dnf remove kernel" would immediately remove all the
kernels without asking for confirmation, I'd say you're right. But it's
not. And you are wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the devel