Save everybody some surprises in Fedora 22!

[Jan Zelený]

On 16. 6. 2014 at 07:49:55, David wrote:
> On 6/16/2014 7:19 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > On 06/16/14 19:00, David wrote:
> >> On 6/16/2014 1:05 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> >>> On 06/16/14 12:27, Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
> >>>> By the way, 'dnf erase kernel' scares me :-O
> >>> 
> >>> FWIW, it has been suggested that the DNF developers would consider 
this
> >>> a bug if the number of CC's on
> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 was over 40.
> >>> 
> >>> It now stands at 40.  But, it wouldn't hurt to have others add
> >>> themselves to the list to increase the #.>> 
> >> 43 now but it is marked "CLOSED WONTFIX". So you think that they will
> >> change their mind?
> > 
> > Let's just put it this way....  They may or they may not, but adding to
> > the cc list couldn't hurt.
> > 
> > Who knows, it may take a large paid user of RHEL suffering an avoidable
> > failure to convince them.
> Perhaps. Have you any knowledge of a Bugzilla marked "CLOSED WONTFIX"
> being changed?

We originally didn't want to implement anything like this for three reasons:

a) in our opinion, dnf should not do the thinking for admins
b) the real impact of this feature is questionable
c) we don't want dnf to contain ugly hacks from the beginning


ad b) how many times have this feature actually saved you from erasing the 
kernel? In 10+ years using Linux I have never managed to do this accidentally. 
That being said, if users accidentally instruct yum to erase the running 
kernel on a regular basis, we are will reconsider this argument. Hence the 
poll ... feel free to reopen the bug too, otherwise it might get off the radar.

ad c) if we are to implement this, it will be a part of systematic solution, 
no workarounds or hackish constructs in the code base. It might take a while 
longer but the difference will be worth the effort, I'm sure.

Thanks
Jan