To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek at in.waw.pl
Thu Oct 29 13:18:17 UTC 2015


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:44:34PM +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.
> >>
> >>[1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677
> >
> >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)

There are three options:
(1, no distro-sync) — upgrade only packages which can be upgraded
  without conflicts. Leaves a partially upgraded system in some cases.
(2, distro-sync) — upgrade packages which can be upgraded, remove
  conflicting ones. Lose some packages during upgrade.
(3, force) — upgrade all packages ignoring conflicts. Leaves the
  system with some programs broken.

You seem to dislike all the options, but I don't see anything else
possible. Do you have some better proposal?

(Note that the user is always asked for confirmation before proceeding,
so she can always stop to remove/update packages by hand in all three
cases.)

Zbyszek


More information about the devel mailing list