On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:48:22 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4866
>
> Maybe it's time to take a look at how other distributions do it.
> Arch's pacman has worked for me without any trouble a long time. And
> there is Opensuse & Co..
For such a
On 24.08.2015, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The feedback in the ticket I've opened is not encouraging so far.
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4866
Maybe it's time to take a look at how other distributions do it.
Arch's pacman has worked for me without any trouble a long time
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:25:48 -0400 (EDT), Honza Šilhan wrote:
> The more I think about it DNF does it right. You should report it to Fedora
> infrastructure.
> DNF shouldn't inspect all mirrors - you would waste too much resources then.
> We need
> a better mechanism. Just 1 reference repomd met
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:54:07 -0400 (EDT), Honza Šilhan wrote:
> File a bug, if you care, please.
And if I don't file a bug, I don't care?
That would be an odd way to put it. =:-/
Would you rather prefer silence and people returning to another distribution?
I mean, it is not clear yet whether mi
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:40:04 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Worth a BZ report surely?
Not from me this time. It is my understanding that there have been
multiple reports before.
A few hours have passed, and meanwhile there are even newer metadata.
However, a subsequent run of "dnf update --
On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 13:21 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> So, indeed, there's something seriously wrong here, and I assume it
> can only be fixed if the developers of mirror manager and dnf come
> together and look into it.
Worth a BZ report surely?
I have no special insight into this, but oft
On 15.08.2015, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> A day later, no matter how often I run "dnf update --refresh", it never
> gets access to the newer metadata from yesterday again. Not the 76 packages
> as shown earlier in this thread, only the older 50.
Jupp! It's exactly what I'm encountering since movi
> And here's proof of what can happen with just --refresh:
>
> 1. dnf update
> 2. dnf update --refresh
> 3. dnf update --refresh
>
> The last run reverts to older metadata with only 50 updates available compared
> with earlier. Mirror manager assigning to an out-of-date mirror?
A day later
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:59:48 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> If the metadata is expired, why is it being checked for currency?
User tells the tool the metadata are expired. Whether that is true,
remains to be seen. They are still in the local cache, and the
mirroring system may tell that ther
On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 12:47 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Behaviour of running with --refresh and after "clean metadata"
> (or the infamous "clean all") differs, because whereas the latter
> forces dnf to start from scratch and download all metadata, the
> former only expires the metadata. It
And here's proof of what can happen with just --refresh:
1. dnf update
2. dnf update --refresh
3. dnf update --refresh
The last run reverts to older metadata with only 50 updates available compared
with earlier. Mirror manager assigning to an out-of-date mirror?
# dnf update
Last metadata
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 23:05:06 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
>
> >
> > That does clearly *not* provide the latest updates. It's better than
> > without "--refresh", but "dnf clean metadata" is required for full
> > updates availa
Hi
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
>
> That does clearly *not* provide the latest updates. It's better than
> without "--refresh", but "dnf clean metadata" is required for full
> updates available.
That contradicts the documentation provided. I would suggest filing
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 20:49 +, Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
> Maybe it would be less confusing if "--refresh" did the job
> (which sounds like a cool workaround for that kind of problem)
> but there's a difference between "--refresh" and "clean metadata".
From the dnf(1) man page:
Note tha
Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> In practice, there's not much of a difference between "clean all"
>> or just "clean metadata". Because both require the update/upgrade
>> command to download all stuff from the network and build to whole
>> meta database from scratch, even if that wouldn't be necessary.
>
> S
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 07:43:49PM +, Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> >> However, if somebody runs "dnf upgrade" on the command shell then
> >> he clearly wants the latest updates. Right now! No caching or other
> >> magic involved. That's the whole point of running "d
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> However, if somebody runs "dnf upgrade" on the command shell then
>> he clearly wants the latest updates. Right now! No caching or other
>> magic involved. That's the whole point of running "dnf upgrade"
>> manually, otherwise the user would have left the whole updating
>
On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 02:23:34AM +, Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
> Suvayu Ali wrote:
>
> >> I hope this will be done *fast*, because I have to "clean all"
> >> *everytime* checking for updates. Otherwise, no updates are shown, even
> >> though they exist. This is a major bug.
> >
> > I'm sor
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 22:38:22 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Andreas M. Kirchwitz
> >
> > However, if somebody runs "dnf upgrade" on the command shell then
> > he clearly wants the latest updates. Right now! No caching or other
> > magic involved. That's the
Hi
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Andreas M. Kirchwitz
>
> However, if somebody runs "dnf upgrade" on the command shell then
> he clearly wants the latest updates. Right now! No caching or other
> magic involved. That's the whole point of running "dnf upgrade"
> manually, otherwise the user woul
Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> I hope this will be done *fast*, because I have to "clean all"
>> *everytime* checking for updates. Otherwise, no updates are shown, even
>> though they exist. This is a major bug.
>
> I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean metadata" or
> "clean expire-cac
On 07/23/2015 08:28 AM, Radek Holy wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf Corsepius"
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:58:49 PM
Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
On 07/22/2015 05:41 PM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 22.07.2015, Suvayu
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 02:32:19AM -0400, Radek Holy wrote:
> >
> > Essentially I'm suggesting to treat no connectivity as a powercycle.
> > Hopefully this gives the devs some ideas.
>
> Can you please file an RFE?
Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246253
Cheers,
--
Suvayu
O
- Original Message -
> From: "Ed Greshko"
> To: "Community support for Fedora users"
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 11:20:05 AM
> Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
>
> On 07/23/15 14:30, Radek Holy wrote:
> > Well, "d
On 07/23/2015 06:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:55 PM, dwoody5654 wrote:
Is there a way to make dnf provide info instead of being silent?
The answer was posted earlier in the thread.
Well, the real answer would be to change dnf's behaviour.
The current behav
On 07/23/15 14:30, Radek Holy wrote:
> Well, "dnf update" is a deprecated alias for "dnf upgrade"
> (http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/command_ref.html#update-command).
At the risk of sounding pedantic, shouldn't there then be a change to
"check-upgrade" and depreciate "check-update". :-)
F
Ron Yorston wrote:
>What immediately seems odd is that 'dnf --refresh check-update' pulled
>in a new version of the rmy metadata (which hasn't expired) but not
>the updates metadata (which has).
Of course, today it didn't need to download new updates metadata
because it hadn't changed. That wasn'
- Original Message -
> From: "Radek Holy"
> To: "Community support for Fedora users"
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:01:24 AM
> Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Ron Y
- Original Message -
> From: "Radek Holy"
> To: "Community support for Fedora users"
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:01:24 AM
> Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Ron Y
- Original Message -
> From: "Ron Yorston"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:20:11 PM
> Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
>
> Suvayu Ali wrote:
> >That said, I sometimes do not understand what's t
- Original Message -
> From: "Suvayu Ali"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:07:13 AM
> Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:42:15PM -0500, Pete Travis wrote:
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Rick Stevens"
> To: "Community support for Fedora users"
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 7:52:32 PM
> Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
>
> On 07/22/2015 10:38 AM, Maurizio Marini wrote:
> > On Tue, 2
- Original Message -
> From: "Ralf Corsepius"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:58:49 PM
> Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
>
> On 07/22/2015 05:41 PM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > On 22.07.2015, Suvayu A
Gordon Messmer wrote:
>Use "dnf repolist -v" to find out, in the future. It will print the
>date from the metadata you have, and the URL of the mirror from which it
>was retrieved.
OK, today 'dnf repolist -v' tells me:
fedora: using metadata from Wed Jul 22 08:38:59 2015.
rmy: using metadata f
Hi
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:55 PM, dwoody5654 wrote:
> Is there a way to make dnf provide info instead of being silent?
>
> The answer was posted earlier in the thread. Use dnf update --best.
Refer to the man dnf for details.
Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsu
On 07/22/2015 09:41 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/22/2015 09:32 PM, Ron Yorston wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
I certainly get the impression that dnf tells me about updates less
frequently than yum did. It also seems to pull in me
On 07/22/2015 09:32 PM, Ron Yorston wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
I certainly get the impression that dnf tells me about updates less
frequently than yum did. It also seems to pull in metadata less
frequently.
Keep in mind that we
On 07/22/2015 09:58 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
What you describe indicates you could be victim of what I conside a
massive design flaw in dnf, the dnf guys have been ignoring ever since,
because they believe to know better: When dnf encounters a broken
dependency, it doesn't tell you about it and
On 07/22/2015 07:39 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 07/22/2015 09:58 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
What you describe indicates you could be victim of what I conside a
massive design flaw in dnf, the dnf guys have been ignoring ever since,
because they believe to know better: When dnf encounters a broken
depe
On 07/22/2015 04:57 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
Do you have references for the on-battery behavior? That's news to me.
/usr/lib/systemd/system/dnf-makecache.service:
ExecStart=/usr/bin/dnf -v makecache timer
man dnf:
dnf [options] makecache timer
Like plain makecache but in
On Jul 22, 2015 6:52 PM, "Gordon Messmer" wrote:
>
> On 07/22/2015 04:07 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>
>> I think this is where things go wrong. OnBootSec handles powerdowns,
>> what about intermittent connections? In principle, it is quite possible
>> everytime the timer triggers the makecache servi
On 07/22/2015 04:07 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
I think this is where things go wrong. OnBootSec handles powerdowns,
what about intermittent connections? In principle, it is quite possible
everytime the timer triggers the makecache service, the connection is
absent.
Which shouldn't matter. If no c
Hi Pete,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:42:15PM -0500, Pete Travis wrote:
>
> There is a timer unit, `/usr/lib/systemd/system/dnf-makecache.timer`, that
> fires ten minutes after each boot then one hour following the execution of
> each previous run. It triggers
> `/usr/lib/systemd/system/dnf-makeca
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Suvayu Ali
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
> > Suvayu Ali wrote:
> > >That said, I sometimes do not understand what's the harm in getting
> > >updates few hours later. dnf already tells you how old the metadata is
> > >when i
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
> Suvayu Ali wrote:
> >That said, I sometimes do not understand what's the harm in getting
> >updates few hours later. dnf already tells you how old the metadata is
> >when it starts, you can choose to get the latest metadata if it is to
On 07/22/2015 11:20 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:
What's going on?
Use "dnf repolist -v" to find out, in the future. It will print the
date from the metadata you have, and the URL of the mirror from which it
was retrieved.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or chang
Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
>> I certainly get the impression that dnf tells me about updates less
>> frequently than yum did. It also seems to pull in metadata less
>> frequently.
>
>Keep in mind that we only push updates once per day *anyw
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
> >That said, I sometimes do not understand what's the harm in getting
> >updates few hours later. dnf already tells you how old the metadata is
> >when it starts, you can choose to get the latest metadata if it is too
> >old. So what's
Suvayu Ali wrote:
>That said, I sometimes do not understand what's the harm in getting
>updates few hours later. dnf already tells you how old the metadata is
>when it starts, you can choose to get the latest metadata if it is too
>old. So what's the big deal?
I certainly get the impression that
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:57:39AM -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
> Open mouth, insert foot. While what I did did result in the chrome
> update, a "dnf clean metadata;dnf update" did come up with 21 more
> items to update--even though it said the metadata was 45 seconds old.
Are you sure you're not ju
On 22.07.2015, Rick Stevens wrote:
> Open mouth, insert foot. While what I did did result in the chrome
> update, a "dnf clean metadata;dnf update" did come up with 21 more
> items to update--even though it said the metadata was 45 seconds old.
Welcome to the club..
--
users mailing list
users
On 07/22/2015 10:57 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
dnf really needs some serious surgery.
I do hope that they don't drop yum (or yum-deprecated as they now call
it) until dnf is at least as feature-complete as yum.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscri
On 07/22/2015 10:52 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 07/22/2015 10:38 AM, Maurizio Marini wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:33:27 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:10:10AM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean metadata" or
"clean expir
On 07/22/2015 10:38 AM, Maurizio Marini wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:33:27 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:10:10AM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean metadata" or
"clean expire-cache" should be sufficient.
You don't ev
On 07/22/2015 09:58 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
What you describe indicates you could be victim of what I conside a
massive design flaw in dnf, the dnf guys have been ignoring ever since,
because they believe to know better: When dnf encounters a broken
dependency, it doesn't tell you about it and
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:33:27 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:10:10AM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> > I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean metadata" or
> > "clean expire-cache" should be sufficient.
>
> You don't even need to do that. Just use the --r
On 07/22/2015 05:41 PM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 22.07.2015, Suvayu Ali wrote:
I usually update weekly (or at least once within two weeks). And since
F22, I get "nothing to do" every time I do this
What you describe indicates you could be victim of what I conside a
massive design flaw in dnf, th
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:41:48PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 22.07.2015, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>
> > That said, I sometimes do not understand what's the harm in getting
> > updates few hours later. dnf already tells you how old the metadata is
> > when it starts, you can choose to get the lates
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 17:41 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 22.07.2015, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean
> > metadata" or
> > "clean expire-cache" should be sufficient.
>
> Ok.
>
> > That said, I sometimes do not understand what's the harm in
On 22.07.2015, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean metadata" or
> "clean expire-cache" should be sufficient.
Ok.
> That said, I sometimes do not understand what's the harm in getting
> updates few hours later. dnf already tells you how old the metad
On 21. 7. 2015 at 20:33:27, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:10:10AM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> > I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean metadata" or
> > "clean expire-cache" should be sufficient.
>
> You don't even need to do that. Just use the --refresh flag
Suvayu, Matthew, you rock guys, thanks!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 21:33 Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:10:10AM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> > I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean metadata" or
> > "clean expire-cache" should be sufficient.
>
> You don't even ne
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:10:10AM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> I'm sorry but "clean all" is not necessary at all! "clean metadata" or
> "clean expire-cache" should be sufficient.
You don't even need to do that. Just use the --refresh flag -- `dnf
--refresh upgrade`.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora P
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:36:26PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 21.07.2015, Radek Holy wrote:
>
> > IIUUC, this is not completely true. I believe that once both PackageKit and
> > DNF are integrated with the new CAShe [1], we will *be able* to improve
> > this situation [2].
>
> I hope this
On 21.07.2015, Radek Holy wrote:
> IIUUC, this is not completely true. I believe that once both PackageKit and
> DNF are integrated with the new CAShe [1], we will *be able* to improve this
> situation [2].
I hope this will be done *fast*, because I have to "clean all"
*everytime* checking for
- Original Message -
> From: "Suvayu Ali"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:58:05 AM
> Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:36:01AM +0200, Maurizio Marini wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 J
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:44:52AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 20. 7. 2015 at 09:43:45, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:00:16AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Javier Perez
> wrote:
> > > > > This is weird.
> > > > > Software Updates on the Con
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:36:01AM +0200, Maurizio Marini wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:01:37 +0200
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:39:36 -0500, Javier Perez wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, just did a dnf clean all , and the dnf update and the updates showed
> > > up
> > >
> > >
On 20. 7. 2015 at 09:43:45, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:00:16AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Javier Perez
wrote:
> > > > This is weird.
> > > > Software Updates on the Control Panel says that there are 39 updates
> > > > available
> > > > But
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:01:37 +0200
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:39:36 -0500, Javier Perez wrote:
>
> > Ok, just did a dnf clean all , and the dnf update and the updates showed up
> >
> > Weird.
>
> Just some hours before your post I had sent this:
> https://lists.fedoraproj
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:39:36 -0500, Javier Perez wrote:
> Ok, just did a dnf clean all , and the dnf update and the updates showed up
>
> Weird.
Just some hours before your post I had sent this:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-July/463183.html
--
users mailing list
users@li
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:00:16AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Javier Perez wrote:
> > > This is weird.
> > > Software Updates on the Control Panel says that there are 39 updates
> > > available
> > > But when I run dnf update it says "Nothing to do". What gives?
On 19. 7. 2015 at 20:39:36, Javier Perez wrote:
> Ok, just did a dnf clean all , and the dnf update and the updates showed up
>
> Weird.
>
> JP
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Javier Perez wrote:
> > This is weird.
> > Software Updates on the Control Panel says that there are 39 updates
>
Ok, just did a dnf clean all , and the dnf update and the updates showed up
Weird.
JP
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Javier Perez wrote:
> This is weird.
> Software Updates on the Control Panel says that there are 39 updates
> available
> But when I run dnf update it says "Nothing to do". Wh
This is weird.
Software Updates on the Control Panel says that there are 39 updates
available
But when I run dnf update it says "Nothing to do". What gives?
JP
--
--
/\_/\
|O O| pepeb...@gmail.com
Javier Perez
While the night runs
75 matches
Mail list logo
