dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

[Dridi Boukelmoune]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jon Kent <jon.kent at gmail.com> wrote:
> Been reading this for a while and I'm getting annoyed by the 'you should
> know what you are doing' mob. There can be no reason not to have safe guards
> in dnf to save you from the oh sh#t moments. Everyone has those at some time
> and those who are learning Linux need these guards to avoid them trashing
> their system. Everyone starts from a little knowledge base and we should
> (must) take that on-board.
>
> It's irrelevant whether yum does or doesn't have this. If dnf is the new and
> improved then it should have these from the off else what's to gain from an
> end SAs point of view.  No point in just creating a like-for-like
> replication.  Make it better and safer or don't bother.

I have already added a comment [1] to the bz where I basically suggest
that dnf acknowledges package protection, but delegates protection
policies to plugins.

Because I totally agree with you and IIRC this kind of stuff has been
added over time in yum. Also IMHO some of those features are very
fedora/el specific, and allows yum to work only on fedora and
downstream distros. Yum expects the kernel rpm to be named "kernel",
which is tied to how Fedora packages kernels.

It's even worse for non-linux rpm-based OSs. But it depends on the
project's goals. Do yum/dnf want to target rpm-based systems or
fedora-based systems?

Dridi

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c37

> Jon
>
>
> On 24 Jun 2014 10:37, "Richard Hughes" <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 June 2014 10:31, Thomas Bendler <ml at bendler-net.de> wrote:
>> > you need to unlock the gun before you can shoot in your foot...
>> > ...and modern systems ask you up to four, five times
>>
>> How many different locks does a gun have? Last time I checked there
>> was one safety catch -- DNF asks you for 'y/N' confirmation with a
>> HUGE list of packages to be removed. If you're not sure whether
>> removing systemd or glibc is a bad idea, perhaps having root access
>> isn't the best plan in the world. There are _so_ _many_ _ways_ to hose
>> your system with root access, I really don't think we can or should
>> baby-proof just one low level command.
>>
>> Richard
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct