size to be larger than any
> savings from using the drpm format:
>
> > Failed Delta RPMs increased 41.3 MB of updates to 43.3 MB (-4.1%
> > wasted)
> >
>
> Is this a repo bug?
This is not a repo bug, but rather a (small) bug in how selinux-policy-
targeted is p
-
2020-02-09T23:25:02Z INFO Total
1.9 MB/s | 43 MB 00:22
2020-02-09T23:25:02Z INFO Failed Delta RPMs increased 41.4 MB of updates to
43.3 MB (-4.1% wasted)
>
> > It almost always causes
n any
> savings from using the drpm format:
>
> Failed Delta RPMs increased 41.3 MB of updates to 43.3 MB (-4.1%
> wasted)
>
> Is this a repo bug?
TLDR; seeing it too, but don't know the cause.
I've started seeing this recently as well. In the same update that
co
packages were not downloaded.
Retrying.selinux-policy-targeted-3.14.4-47.fc31.noarch.r 14 MB/s |
13 MB 00:00
It almost always causes the total download size to be larger than any
savings from using the drpm format:
Failed Delta RPMs increased 41.3 MB of updates to 43.3 MB (-4.1
han the total of the full RPMs.
Regards,
Andy
.
Yes, increasing the data by roughly 50%. "Delta RPMs increased 10.7 MB
of updates to 15.9 MB (-48.1% wasted)"
Since you saw it too, I will assume it is not a problem in my system,
and will watch for any recurrence.
Thanks for respo
On 21 September 2017 at 08:47, Bob Goodwin wrote:
>
> This is the first time I've observed this happening, delta rpm did the
> opposite of what I expected, dunno if I have a problem in this system or if
> it is in the data received? I thought it interesting if nothing else ...
Noticed that too.
e not downloaded. Retrying.
selinux-policy-targeted-3.13.1-260.9.fc26.noarch.rpm 1.2 MB/s | 9.4
---
Total 894 kB/s | 16
Failed Delta RPMs increased 10.7 MB of updates to
f the packages are
>> under fedora-secondary and some are under fedora. We need a fix for
>> https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1685 in order to get this
>> working again.
>>
>> Hopefully we will have a patch soon and they will be re-enabled.
> +
>
> D
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 03:50:45AM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> >Hopefully we will have a patch soon and they will be re-enabled.
> Delta RPMs appear to be working once again this morning:
Yes -- some people hacked on this during Flock and fixed the problems.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedor
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1685 in order to get this
working again.
Hopefully we will have a patch soon and they will be re-enabled.
+
Delta RPMs appear to be working once again this morning:
Total 436 kB/s |
22 MB 00
On 08/25/2017 09:05 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 08/25/2017 03:27 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:
>> I've subscribed to the infrastructure mailing list and have asked there.
My reply there for folks here:
Short answer: Yes. We know they are currently not working for f26.
Long answer: With the addition
On 08/25/2017 03:27 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:
I've subscribed to the infrastructure mailing list and have asked there.
Good idea. I don't think it's been abandoned. At least, I haven't seen
any proposals to do so. The directory is present again on the mirrors
I've seen. However, I don't see
On 25/08/17 12:30, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 08/25/17 05:26, Ed Greshko wrote:
this morning, two "dnf upgrades" without one delta rpm. It looks as
though they've abandoned it?
FWIW, I had an F25 VM that had not been updated in a while. When I
updated it there
were quite a few *.drpm files downl
On 08/25/17 05:26, Ed Greshko wrote:
this morning, two "dnf upgrades" without one delta rpm. It looks as though
they've abandoned it?
FWIW, I had an F25 VM that had not been updated in a while. When I updated it
there
were quite a few *.drpm files downloaded.
-- Fedora Users List - The plac
I've subscribed to the infrastructure mailing list and have asked there.
Ron
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 08/25/2017 05:17 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> On 08/25/17 04:02, Ron Yorston wrote:
>> I've just updated two F26 machines and not a single DRPM was used.
>>
>> Ron
>> ___
> .
> I saw the same result this morning, two "dnf upgrades" without one delta rpm.
On 08/25/17 04:02, Ron Yorston wrote:
I've just updated two F26 machines and not a single DRPM was used.
Ron
___
.
I saw the same result this morning, two "dnf upgrades" without one delta
rpm. It looks as though they've abandoned it?
Bob
--
Bob Go
Gordon Messmer wrote:
>I don't see a "drpms" directory in the fedora 26 "updates" directory.
>It's still present for f25 and f27. I haven't seen any notices about
>that, so it might be a failure. I'm asking in the #fedora IRC
>channel. I'll file a bug later if needed.
Did you get any response?
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 13:59 +0100, Christopher Ross wrote:
> On 24/08/17 13:48, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > The man page for dnf says: "Allow erasing of installed packages to
> > resolve dependencies" (which is actually not as clear as it might be -
> > would removing every package on the s
On 24/08/17 13:48, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
The man page for dnf says: "Allow erasing of installed packages to
resolve dependencies" (which is actually not as clear as it might be -
would removing every package on the system resolve dependencies?).
However that is consistent with what it did
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 12:30 +0100, Christopher Ross wrote:
> On 24/08/17 10:59, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 09:03 +0100, Christopher Ross wrote:
> > > On 23/08/17 14:27, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > > > On 08/23/2017 08:40 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > > > > # dnf upgrade
> > > > > L
On 24/08/17 10:59, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 09:03 +0100, Christopher Ross wrote:
On 23/08/17 14:27, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 08/23/2017 08:40 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
# dnf upgrade
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Wed Aug 23 04:43:05 2017.
Dependencies resolved.
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 09:03 +0100, Christopher Ross wrote:
> On 23/08/17 14:27, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > On 08/23/2017 08:40 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> > > # dnf upgrade
> > > Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Wed Aug 23 04:43:05 2017.
> > > Dependencies resolved.
> > >
> > > Problem: ca
On 23/08/17 14:27, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 08/23/2017 08:40 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
# dnf upgrade
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Wed Aug 23 04:43:05 2017.
Dependencies resolved.
Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package
firefox-55.0.1-1.fc26.x86_64
- nothing
On 08/23/17 09:27, Ed Greshko wrote:
Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package
firefox-55.0.1-1.fc26.x86_64
- nothing provides nspr >= 4.16.0 needed by firefox-55.0.2-1.fc26.x86_64
nspr is still in updates-testing. If you want you can run "dnf --enablerepo
updates-testi
On 08/23/2017 05:40 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Can I determine if "drpms" are being provided before actually
downloading them? If so how?
You can load:
http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/$releasever/$basearch/
...in your browser. Though it's still possible that dnf will
On 08/23/2017 08:40 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> # dnf upgrade
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Wed Aug 23 04:43:05 2017.
> Dependencies resolved.
>
> Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package
> firefox-55.0.1-1.fc26.x86_64
> - nothing provides nspr >= 4.16.0 need
On 08/22/17 15:25, Gordon Messmer wrote:
The "drpms" directory is back, today.
.
Can I determine if "drpms" are being provided before actually
downloading them? If so how?
Also the following notice came up this morning. I assume this will wait
until the dependency becomes available?
# dnf
On 08/22/17 15:25, Gordon Messmer wrote:
The "drpms" directory is back, today.
+
Well then it was probably missing for just a day or two and it happened
when I cared about usage.
I ran dnf upgrades this morning as usual but I needed no updates.
# dnf upgrade
Last metadata expiration check: 0
On 08/22/2017 01:12 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Thank you Gordon, I appreciate your interest and response to my inquiry.
The "drpms" directory is back, today.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le
On 08/21/17 20:06, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I don't see a "drpms" directory in the fedora 26 "updates" directory.
It's still present for f25 and f27. I haven't seen any notices about
that, so it might be a failure. I'm asking in the #fedora IRC
channel. I'll file a bug later if needed.
___
T
#x27;s
what happened yesterday, it said it was a 374 MB download, I thought
well it will reduce to much less with drpm's, and was surprised when I
saw none.
It's not a disaster, just a surprise and an annoyance. I figure I can
use ~800MB a day and stay within limits. Had I reali
I don't see a "drpms" directory in the fedora 26 "updates" directory.
It's still present for f25 and f27. I haven't seen any notices about
that, so it might be a failure. I'm asking in the #fedora IRC
channel. I'll file a bug later if needed.
___
users
downloaded by the first machine (assuming both
are the same fedora version). You just have to make sure to do one
and let it finish then after it is done move on to the second.
Roger
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> Is dnf no longer using delta rpms? I updated two computers t
Is dnf no longer using delta rpms? I updated two computers this morning
and it looks like both were 100% rpms ...
Without that feature I have to be careful not to do large upgrades
during "prime time" on my Viasat account as I just did on the second
one. :-(
Bob
--
Bob Good
On 02/16/11 15:26, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/16/2011 06:57 PM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
Hi! How can i disable the usage of delta rpms?
Edit /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/presto.conf and change enabled=1 to
enabled=0 or just yum remove yum-presto
Thanks!
Adrian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
On 02/16/2011 06:57 PM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
> Hi! How can i disable the usage of delta rpms?
Edit /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/presto.conf and change enabled=1 to
enabled=0 or just yum remove yum-presto
Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or cha
On 02/16/2011 06:57 PM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
> Hi! How can i disable the usage of delta rpms?
Edit /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/presto.conf and change enabled=1 to
enabled=0 or just yum remove yum-presto
Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or cha
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
> Hi! How can i disable the usage of delta rpms?
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
> --
> users mailing list
> users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproj
Hi! How can i disable the usage of delta rpms?
Thanks,
Adrian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http
40 matches
Mail list logo
