2 ms·

> Depends on your definition of reliability I guess No, not at all. Not doing the elementary work to design the package manager in a way that it will keep the

> Depends on your definition of reliability I guess No, not at all. Not doing the elementary work to design the package manager in a way that it will keep the system in a consistent state as it is reasonably possible is unreliable. On top of that, if the developers of the said software are ignoring the issue, denying it is their responsibility and tell people to use a different program instead, I will personally not touch it with a 10 foot pole. Refusing to run when a concurrent copy is already running on the other hand, is just a comfort issue. > makes relying on dnf feel much safer So you are OK with ignoring a real reliability issue and a trivial UX behavior is enough for creating an illusion of safety? Check the thread I've posted, Fedora developers are more than happy to recommend not using DNF and using offline updates thing instead. Now try running multiple instances of "offline update" thingy and see how far it goes in your pet scenario ;)

josteink 10y ago
> so you are OK with ignoring a real reliability issue and a trivial UX behavior Reliability has many dimensions. If I can't trust that the package manager handles all the issues you can encounter when managing packages, I cannot trust any component which interacts with the package manager to be reliable either. dnf does a lot of right things(tm) which apt doesn't, which means I can trust that scripts I write to work with the package manager will work reliably. Apt outsources approximately 2 out of 3 failure-modes to its users meaning every automated attempt to interact with it, is bound to fail on stupid shit it shouldn't. And then you can't rely on apt. Apt is not reliable. To me it seems like a misinformed version of "KISS"/"YAGNI", because you do need a package manager to handle and abstract all those things. That's what it's for.
- kasabali 10y ago
  OK, now I understand what you mean by reliability and I appreciate that. Thanks for explaining it. I'm just not comfortable you claiming it is more reliable than apt because then some people will think it is a package manager with minimal amount of importance was attached to its design so that it won't leave the users system in an inconsistent state even in most easily correctable scenarios when that's actually not the case.

josteink 10y ago

> so you are OK with ignoring a real reliability issue and a trivial UX behavior Reliability has many dimensions. If I can't trust that the package manager handles all the issues you can encounter when managing packages, I cannot trust any component which interacts with the package manager to be reliable either. dnf does a lot of right things(tm) which apt doesn't, which means I can trust that scripts I write to work with the package manager will work reliably. Apt outsources approximately 2 out of 3 failure-modes to its users meaning every automated attempt to interact with it, is bound to fail on stupid shit it shouldn't. And then you can't rely on apt. Apt is not reliable. To me it seems like a misinformed version of "KISS"/"YAGNI", because you do need a package manager to handle and abstract all those things. That's what it's for.

kasabali 10y ago
OK, now I understand what you mean by reliability and I appreciate that. Thanks for explaining it. I'm just not comfortable you claiming it is more reliable than apt because then some people will think it is a package manager with minimal amount of importance was attached to its design so that it won't leave the users system in an inconsistent state even in most easily correctable scenarios when that's actually not the case.