Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Vít Ondruch wrote: > While more convenient way is "dnf history undo last", which used to work > with YUM, but is broken in DNF, since it does not keep the cache around, > as Kevin pointed out. YUM was also set up with keepcache=0 in the Fedora package, against the upstream default of

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Adam Williamson wrote: > (Obviously the *right* way to do that general approach is some form of > snapshotting... No. If one update is broken, I want to revert that particular update, not my entire system. The Window$ "system restore" approach is just broken and a horrible idea to reimplement.

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 23:57:07 - Samuel Rakitničan wrote: > > On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 05:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > "hunt down"? > > > > koji download-build (nvr) works fine. Just a side note: Kevin Kofler didn't say that. Please watch your

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Dne 5.11.2016 v 07:10 Adam Williamson napsal(a): > On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 05:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Otherwise, you have to hunt down the old builds >> directly in Koji > "hunt down"? > > koji download-build (nvr) works fine. While more convenient way is "dnf history undo last", which

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 11/05/2016 05:01 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: >> Add to this that these caches seem to be never cleaned, so that they >> grow up very large up to the point they prevent updating the system. I >> just found that the packagekit cache on my machine is about 7Gb !!! >>

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 2016-11-07, Adam Williamson wrote: > I don't believe the vast majority of people actually install old > package versions *ever*, unless they get very explicit instructions to > do so either because there was a big fail of some kind and we did our > usual emergency

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 2016-11-05, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 05:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Otherwise, you have to hunt down the old builds >> directly in Koji > > "hunt down"? > > koji download-build (nvr) works fine. DNF history lists binary package NVRs.

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sun, 2016-11-06 at 23:57 +, Samuel Rakitničan wrote: > > On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 05:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > "hunt down"? > > > > koji download-build (nvr) works fine. > > I think you are missing the point here. Reverting dnf history does > not work if packages are missing

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

> On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 05:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > "hunt down"? > > koji download-build (nvr) works fine. I think you are missing the point here. Reverting dnf history does not work if packages are missing from repository. Besides "koji" command is not installed on my machine, and

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 05:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Otherwise, you have to hunt down the old builds > directly in Koji "hunt down"? koji download-build (nvr) works fine. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Adam Williamson wrote: > 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing > fairly data-hungry transactions in the background, out of the box, > without telling you about it. GNOME's is particularly bad, as it will > happily download available updates in the background, which can

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: > Add to this that these caches seem to be never cleaned, so that they > grow up very large up to the point they prevent updating the system. I > just found that the packagekit cache on my machine is about 7Gb !!! > Probably because I do use packageit at all (dnf cache

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >> > The metalinks already provide checksums and timestamps for the >> > metadata. So instead of dumbly going out and re-downloading the entire >> > metadata at hardcoded intervals, couldn't we rather just check if

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Hi, > > The metalinks already provide checksums and timestamps for the > > metadata. So instead of dumbly going out and re-downloading the entire > > metadata at hardcoded intervals, couldn't we rather just check if the > > 'latest' metadata (according to the metalink) has changed since the > >

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 11/02/2016 08:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 08:50 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On a related note, why on earth is the main Fedora repo set to expire every two weeks? (and its -source and -debuginfo every week??) It's not supposed to change *ever* for a released distro

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Yeah, sorry, looks like either hyperkitty or I messed up. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

El 2/11/2016 12:16 p. m., "Adam Williamson" escribió: > > On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 08:50 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On a related note, why on earth is the main Fedora repo set to expire > > every two weeks? (and its -source and -debuginfo every week??) It's not > >

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 10:49 +, Christian Stadelmann wrote: > > On 10/30/2016 03:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > Fedora updates so often that attempts to pre-download anything updates > > related are pointless. Chances are you > > a) waste gobs of bandwidth downloading that changing

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 08:50 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On a related note, why on earth is the main Fedora repo set to expire > every two weeks? (and its -source and -debuginfo every week??) It's not > supposed to change *ever* for a released distro version now is it? You know, this may be

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 10/31/2016 05:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 15:09 +, Richard Hughes wrote: >> >> I think this kind of issue is really fixed the hard way, i.e. fixing >> bugs and adding unimplemented features rather than just adding complex >> UI workarounds. > > I think making it

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

> On 10/30/2016 03:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Fedora updates so often that attempts to pre-download anything updates > related are pointless. Chances are you > a) waste gobs of bandwidth downloading that changing data over and over > again without ever using it > b) when you actually

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 31.10.2016 v 12:55 Tom Hughes napsal(a): >> The problem, as I believe has been repeatedly explained, is that you don't >> really have any idea whether the connection >> is metered. Yes you may be trying to guess by

NetworkManager's Metered property (was: Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage)

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 12:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 09:23:06AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > For that matter, I'm fairly sure I've seen background update > > downloading happen when I was using an Android wifi tether > > connection. I'm pretty sure I

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Dne 31.10.2016 v 12:55 Tom Hughes napsal(a): > The problem, as I believe has been repeatedly explained, is that you don't > really have any idea whether the connection > is metered. Yes you may be trying to guess by considering things like 3G > connections as metered but that is an extremely >

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 18:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Huh, since F23 or so I've found the refresh button to be pretty > reliable. It does seem to actually force Software to go refresh the > metadata and download available updates, now. I think in the past it > just 'forced' a run of the

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 19:57 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I think it's a GNOME Software bug that it says up to date when it's > not. I've complained about that for years. It will happily tell you > that your freshly-installed Fedora system is up to date months after > release, before the

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 15:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > The other thing I'm seeing is, I'll get a notification for software > updates, click on it, see the Restart & Install blue button in GNOME > Software, close/quite GNOME Software, and at some later time relaunch > GNOME Software and it says

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

31.10.2016 22:35 Chris Murphy wrote: > [...] And if I refresh, it appears to be > downloading a lot of data all over again - I just don't know what and > have no good way to troubleshoot this, but the refresh is taking a > long time, maybe 30 minutes. That's definitely

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: >> On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 22:50 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> Since offline updates are the default, and packagekit downloads >>>

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 22:50 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Since offline updates are the default, and packagekit downloads >> everything currently needing updating, if the user doesn't ever do a >> Restart & Install

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 11:54 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 18:15 +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > This is more of an issue for Workstation and the spins destined for > > desktop use, so any possible solution needs to rely on > > Anaconda/Initial Setup and each DE. >

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 18:15 +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > This is more of an issue for Workstation and the spins destined for > desktop use, so any possible solution needs to rely on > Anaconda/Initial Setup and each DE. My $0.02 as a sometimes contributor to gnome-initial-setup: it

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 12:25 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Otherwise your description doesn't seem to square with the fact that > > most everyone sees background update downloads OOTB. > > > > Even still, in fact, kparal mentioned them happening on hotel wifi, so > > why would that be the case

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 09:23:06AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > For that matter, I'm fairly sure I've seen background update > downloading happen when I was using an Android wifi tether > connection. I'm pretty sure I remember it blowing my data cap one > month when I was using my laptop on the

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

No, there's no UI: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745747 - Original Message - > On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 15:09 +, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > > I think this kind of issue is really fixed the hard way, i.e. fixing > > bugs and adding unimplemented features rather than just

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

- Original Message - > On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 08:18 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > How does a connection become "unmetered"? It can't just be on interface > > > type, > > > as I have metered connections on all interface types, so presumably you > > > use > > > some form of web

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 08:18 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > How does a connection become "unmetered"? It can't just be on interface > > type, > > as I have metered connections on all interface types, so presumably you use > > some form of web service to distinguish "metered" from "unmetered"

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 09:06:50AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > One of the bugs has a note I was not aware of before: there's > actually a DHCP value that can be sent by the server to denote a > metered connection. If that's actually widely respected, and set by > phone wifi AP applications and

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 09:13 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 08:18 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > How does a connection become "unmetered"? It can't just be on interface > > > type, > > > as I have metered connections on all interface types, so presumably you > > >

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 15:09 +, Richard Hughes wrote: > > I think this kind of issue is really fixed the hard way, i.e. fixing > bugs and adding unimplemented features rather than just adding complex > UI workarounds. I think making it work as best as possible without interaction is great, 

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Hello, I'm not sure I have all my facts straight -and by all means, please help straighten them out-, but I would like to address Adam's original proposals. This is more of an issue for Workstation and the spins destined for desktop use, so any possible solution needs to rely on Anaconda/Initial

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 11:55 +, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 31/10/16 11:41, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On 30 October 2016 at 01:26, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing > > > fairly data-hungry transactions in

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 31 October 2016 at 14:56, Bastien Nocera wrote: > I'd really like the kernel to do QoS on the user's own connections. We can > know > whether downloads are interactive or not, so there is metadata available > to make this better, and not cripple interactive downloads while

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

- Original Message - > > On 30 October 2016 at 01:26, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing > > > fairly data-hungry transactions in the background, out of the box, > > > without telling you about

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 10:32 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > > On 30 October 2016 at 01:26, Adam Williamson > t.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing > > > fairly data-hungry transactions in the background, out of

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

> On 30 October 2016 at 01:26, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing > > fairly data-hungry transactions in the background, out of the box, > > without telling you about it. GNOME's is particularly bad, as it

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:38:17PM +, Richard Hughes wrote: > I guess use a dconf override to change the default for all users, e.g. >

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 31 October 2016 at 13:33, Matthew Miller wrote: > This is per-user, right? Right. > How do you do it for the whole system? I guess use a dconf override to change the default for all users, e.g.

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 31/10/16 13:29, Richard Hughes wrote: On 31 October 2016 at 12:55, Bastien Nocera wrote: So how do I tag a connection as unmetered with systemd-networkd? You can't. You get a box of bits if you start replacing parts of the Workstation experience Right, in this case

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:29:45PM +, Richard Hughes wrote: > > You can't. You get a box of bits if you start replacing parts of the > > Workstation experience > Right, in this case you'd just have to do "gsettings set > org.gnome.software download-updates false" -- we can't possibly cope >

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 31 October 2016 at 12:55, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> So how do I tag a connection as unmetered with systemd-networkd? > You can't. You get a box of bits if you start replacing parts of the > Workstation experience Right, in this case you'd just have to do "gsettings set

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

- Original Message - > On 31/10/16 12:18, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > They're metered unless you either tag them as unmetered, or hints are > > provided > > to NetworkManager by what you're connected to. For example, Android > > tethering > > is automatically tagged as metered as

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 31/10/16 12:18, Bastien Nocera wrote: They're metered unless you either tag them as unmetered, or hints are provided to NetworkManager by what you're connected to. For example, Android tethering is automatically tagged as metered as Android provides a hint in its DHCP configuration. What

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

- Original Message - > On 31 Oct 2016, at 11:41, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > > On 30 October 2016 at 01:26, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > >> 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing > >> fairly data-hungry

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 31 Oct 2016, at 11:41, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On 30 October 2016 at 01:26, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing >> fairly data-hungry transactions in the background, out of the box,

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 31/10/16 11:41, Richard Hughes wrote: On 30 October 2016 at 01:26, Adam Williamson wrote: 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing fairly data-hungry transactions in the background, out of the box, without telling you about it. GNOME's is

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 30 October 2016 at 01:26, Adam Williamson wrote: > 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing > fairly data-hungry transactions in the background, out of the box, > without telling you about it. GNOME's is particularly bad, as it will >

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 22:50 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Since offline updates are the default, and packagekit downloads > everything currently needing updating, if the user doesn't ever do a > Restart & Install to proceed with offline updates, i.e. they only > ever > use dnf for updates and never

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

You can add this one https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=768632 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:02:43AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 09:15 +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: > > I > > just found that the packagekit cache on my machine is about 7Gb !!! > > This has got to be a bug, please report it. There are several bug reports about

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 09:15 +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: >> I >> just found that the packagekit cache on my machine is about 7Gb !!! > > This has got to be a bug, please report it. Since offline updates are

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:02:43AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 09:15 +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: > > I > > just found that the packagekit cache on my machine is about 7Gb !!! > > This has got to be a bug, please report it. My packagekit cache regularly fills up

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 09:15 +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: > I > just found that the packagekit cache on my machine is about 7Gb !!! This has got to be a bug, please report it. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 10/30/2016 02:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > There's two things I think are somewhat unfortunate here: > > 1) Both dnf and GNOME Software / PackageKit default to performing > fairly data-hungry transactions in the background, out of the box, > without telling you about it. GNOME's is

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 10/30/2016 02:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > * We could have some kind of configuration interface appear on install > / first boot. This would require integration with anaconda and/or > initial-setup and gnome-initial-setup. > > * We could invert the defaults and have the apps ask the user

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 10/30/2016 03:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: Hi folks! I kinda hate kicking off discussions like this without having a solid solution to propose or being able to promise to work on one, but this really seems important. Unfortunately I can't claim I'm gonna have time to do any concrete work on

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! > > I kinda hate kicking off discussions like this without having a solid > solution to propose or being able to promise to work on one, but this > really seems important. Unfortunately I can't claim

DNF and PackageKit background data usage

Hi folks! I kinda hate kicking off discussions like this without having a solid solution to propose or being able to promise to work on one, but this really seems important. Unfortunately I can't claim I'm gonna have time to do any concrete work on it, though I'd really *like* to. But I thought