announcement --- planned Yum replacement now ready for user testing

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Joe Zeff <joe at zeff.us> wrote:

> On 01/02/2014 03:42 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>
>> That would imply that someone actually took the decision to *remove* the
>> protections against leaving the system with no installed kernel. Was
>> this discussed? What were the proposers smoking?
>>
>
> It's always been a principle that *nix won't stop you from doing something
> stupid if it prevents me from doing something clever.  I can't see how
> removing the installed kernel could be clever, but that might have been
> behind their thinking.
>

Note that I didn't say "prevent", I said "protect". Yum doesn't prevent it
either, since you can easily get round the protection it provides if you
want to, but it stops silly accidents from happening and that's a Good
Thing (tm). Just like 'rm' will ask you to confirm when you try to remove a
protected file, unless you use the '-f' option.


> Actually, AIUI, the file isn't removed until the last program that's using
> it closes the file.
>

Of course, this is standard Unix semantics. The only time it will bite you
is when the system wants to open a file that has been removed. I wouldn't
want to rely on it not wanting to do that.

poc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140103/22cf4d51/attachment.html>