dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

[Ian Malone]

On 24 June 2014 12:51, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>
>
> Am 24.06.2014 12:56, schrieb Ian Malone:
>> On 24 June 2014 11:03, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 24.06.2014 11:40, schrieb Florian Weimer:
>>>> On 06/24/2014 11:31 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote:
>>>>> Hopefully you don't write professional software with this kind of
>>>>> attitude.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't try to win arguments by labeling the opposition as
>>>> incompetent.  You won't convince anyone, and it contributes to
>>>> making the Fedora mailing lists a hostile place
>>>
>>> well, tell the same the guy he responded to having nothing better
>>> to do than calling people stupid which don't accept regressions
>>> and steps backwards here and on bugzilla
>>>
>>> hopefully some kernel update in the future won't work on his
>>> machine and the third update removes his only bootable one
>>> not for malicious joy but it turns out some people need to
>>> learn it the hard way
>>>
>>> that attitude would be acceptable if we would dicuss about new
>>> protections never existed before - but in fact we are talking
>>> about a proposed replacement of YUM which has these kind of
>>> things for years now and in that context it's just a rgeression
>>
>> Comment 16 of the Bugzilla suggests that the running kernel is
>> retained during updates in DNF, as it is in Yum.
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310#c16
>>
>> I don't know if that's correct and it doesn't invalidate any of the
>> arguments about general safety, but apparently update does do
>> something similar to the Yum behaviour (it inverts the meaning of the
>> related setting though)
>
> don't get me wrong, but instead speculate you could try it out and
> see that it would get removed and until yesterday the DNF developers
> statet that they won't protect anything which leaded to my first
> "is DNF ready to replace YUM" thread at the begin of this year

> [root at rawhide ~]# dnf remove kernel
> Failed loading plugin: copr
> Dependencies resolved.
>

I meant to say I don't know for sure because I don't have a system
with DNF to try it on. However I said 'update' and not 'remove', which
I realise is the main point in this whole debate, but the 'running
kernel preserved against updates' argument is not about 'remove'.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk