"dnf update" considered harmful

Posted Oct 7, 2016 19:42 UTC (Fri) by sourcejedi (guest, #45153)
In reply to: "dnf update" considered harmful by AdamW
Parent article: "dnf update" considered harmful

Fair objection. Sorry for raising the tone, I enjoy the usually civil comments here.

As said elsewhere, I'd be liable to fall foul of this issue. And in reality I'd be just as annoyed if I hadn't been warned, as I would be annoyed at rpm's poor error recovery.

I shouldn't begrudge constructive discussions (e.g. whether or not dnf should detach). Nor do I begrudge discussion of tmux, and why it's not completely n00b-friendly.

Thanks for outlining how to recover downthread; understanding that makes me personally much more comfortable. Perhaps what I most objected to was being told rpmdb would screw up, without my knowing exactly what degree of screwed up. (I hope the bug reports you mentioned... achieve something, at least to provide similar reference material).

For... reasons, I currently prefer `pkcon update`. I suspect PackageKit (being a daemon) would fare rather better in this scenario. Very interesting if anyone can comment on that.

"dnf update" considered harmful

Posted Oct 7, 2016 23:31 UTC (Fri) by AdamW (subscriber, #48457) [Link]

I'm not actually sure exactly how the process works with pkcon - whether the actual transaction runs under the packagekitd process, or what. It'd be interesting to know.