To distro-sync or not distro-sync?
h.reindl at thelounge.net
Thu Oct 29 13:17:07 UTC 2015
Am 29.10.2015 um 14:11 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 13:44 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 29.10.2015 um 13:37 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
>>> On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 17:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
>>>> You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.
>>> yep, so not distro-sync
>> nonsense when i read the bugreport
>> * system-upgrade now uses dnf (standard "dnf update" approach)
>> THAT is the problem and i really wonder what somebody thinks by
>> implement it that way after *many years* of "yum --releasever=XX
>> distro-sync" works absolutely relieable
>> * change "dnf update" mode during system upgrade to
>> "dnf distro-sync --allowerasing"
>> THAT is the right direction but nonsense because --allowerasing is a
>> terrible idea, anyways "dnf --releasever=XX distro-sync" is not affected
>> by both wrong solutions as far as i see (expect DNF is intentionally or
>> unintenioally broken elsewhere there)
> You need --allowerasing for updates which obsolete other packages, if
> not you can't update
that would be another regression compared to yum
> distro-sync can downgrading packages which in upgrading is not the best
> place . You can do it after upgrade the system .
> dnf update --allowerasing is what I want /need
the whole purpose of distro-sync is that it can downgrade - as exmaple
you may have stuff from updates-testing installed and updates-testing
not enabled due distro-sync and so the versions in the newer release can
the only right thing to do in that case is downgrade them, also for
packages where maintainers just forgot to rebuild for the next release
which happened often enough in the past
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the devel