PDA

View Full Version : Is it still a bad idea to run dnf update from inside the desktop environment?



marko
2nd December 2017, 11:32 PM
I've always run 'dnf upgrade' from inside a terminal in KDE, but recently it was said that was dangerous?
Was that a one time issue that's fixed now?

To be safe I log out of KDE and run the dnf update from a text virtual console but that's a hassle and prefer to go back to my old way in the DE.

glennzo
3rd December 2017, 12:43 AM
I do it all the time, inside a terminal within LXDE. XFCE and Gnome. Never have an issue.

lsatenstein
3rd December 2017, 07:07 AM
There is no danger now. KDE won't or should not crash on you part way through a dnf update. In the past, some of the updates were applicable to KDE, to the very version you were using. That resulted in the dnf installation of updates being incompatible with your active version, leading to a KDE user crash.

Have you looked at dnfdragora? Its a pretty good GUI interface for doing updates. It replaces the yumex predecessor. I make use of dnfdragon more often than doing a "sudo dnf update"

Kobuck
3rd December 2017, 02:22 PM
Its been my SOP for years to use a Gnome terminal session. Used it for "yum" then continued with "dnf" for both my local system and remotes via "ssh".

kldixon
3rd December 2017, 04:03 PM
I too have have always used Gnome terminal.
On one occasion, a year or two ago, I had a small issue which required a reboot to resolve. I think it was caused by an update of mutter. I think that is the main risk; updating desktop components.
It is my habit to always reboot after updating and to have only the terminal running during the update.

lsatenstein
3rd December 2017, 04:20 PM
I only reboot if there is a kernel update. One advantage of running in gnome terminal, is the ability to scroll. Gnome terminal keeps a history of a thousand or so of the last lines of display. Its nice to scroll back to see what's really new.

HaydnH
4th December 2017, 12:01 PM
I was using gnome-terminal until it started to use true transparency. I quite like having the "fake" transparency where you get your background image displayed in the terminal rather than all the windows actually underneath it which I find completely confusing to the eye. I'm currently using lxterminal for that reason. Never had a problem running dnf under Window Maker in gnome or lx terminal.

kldixon
4th December 2017, 12:38 PM
In a Gnome terminal window do:
RightClick->Profiles->Profile Preferences->Colours
Deselect 'Transparent background'
and change whatever other settings you want to.

HaydnH
4th December 2017, 01:41 PM
In a Gnome terminal window do:
RightClick->Profiles->Profile Preferences->Colours
Deselect 'Transparent background'
and change whatever other settings you want to.

But I don't want to disable transparency. Transparency in most terminals is "real" transparency these days, so if you have a browser underneath you can see the text in the browser through the terminal - I find this hard to read the terminal text over the top of the other text. The old style "fake" transparency where the correct part of desktop wallpaper is displayed as the terminal window background with any windows underneath ignored is what I prefer.

Having said that I just fired up gnome-terminal and transparency doesn't work at all now in Window Maker. :(

evilbastard
4th December 2017, 05:55 PM
I was using gnome-terminal until it started to use true transparency. I quite like having the "fake" transparency where you get your background image displayed in the terminal rather than all the windows actually underneath it which I find completely confusing to the eye. I'm currently using lxterminal for that reason. Never had a problem running dnf under Window Maker in gnome or lx terminal.

I am the exact opposite, I love the transparent terminal, and hated that the background was "Recreated" inside the terminal.

HaydnH
5th December 2017, 12:10 PM
I am the exact opposite, I love the transparent terminal, and hated that the background was "Recreated" inside the terminal.

I can understand using the background was a simple way of "faking" transparency back in the day, but it's a shame all the terminals are "fixing" it without leaving an option for the old style.

evilbastard
6th December 2017, 02:44 AM
I can understand using the background was a simple way of "faking" transparency back in the day, but it's a shame all the terminals are "fixing" it without leaving an option for the old style.

Maybe it was eating up resources? The terminal window had to keep track of the position then recreate the background image on where the new window position is.