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

[Tom H]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Adrian Sevcenco
<Adrian.Sevcenco at cern.ch> wrote:
> On 01/02/2014 12:54 PM, Ales Kozumplik wrote:


>>> A question, I found the following on
>>> <http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html>
>>>
>>> "dnf erase kernel deletes all packages called kernel
>>>
>>> In Yum, the running kernel is spared. There is no reason to keep this in
>>> DNF, the user can always specify concrete versions on the command line,
>>> e.g.:
>>>
>>> dnf erase kernel-3.9.4"
>>>
>>> So if I issue 'dnf erase kernel' all kernels will be removed, and I have
>>> no kernel anymore? Is that really a good thing? Should we not spare the
>>> running kernel? Or is there some rationale behind this that I am missing?
>>
>> yes that's the idea. In practice however, a user doesn't type 'dnf erase
>> -y kernel' by accident and we don't feel the need to protect users who
>
> Just in case it happens, is it possible to prepare in advance a wiki
> page with instructions for repairing this accident?

Of course it's going to happen but it can happen with apt-get too, in
the same way that someone can also delete "/boot" as Ales points out
below. The solution's going to be, for example, to boot from a
recovery DVD, chroot, and reinstall a kernel.

The problem's that it's a regression compared to yum and I'd point out
to the dnf developers that it must be much simpler to grab the yum
code that prevents the running kernel from being deleted and integrate
it into dnf than have multiple angry threads here and on devel@ about
this up to and beyond the release of F22. And it'll be good PR that
they respond positively to feedback.


>> really know what they are doing from doing so. It's the same situation
>> as 'rm -rf /boot' or 'rpm -e --allmatches kernel'. Of course, people are
>> welcome to write specific plugins to achieve something similar to what
>> Yum used to do.