On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:38:44 -0400
Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2016, at 12:51, Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
>
> > Traditionally, we've assumed a greater level of understanding for
> > those who use CLI tools as opposed to GUI tools. It's expected
On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:44 +, John Florian wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Wakely [mailto:jwak...@fedoraproject.org]
> > PackageKit and DNF use separate caches, which are not updated at
> > the same time. Try "pkcon refresh" first to update its cache.
>
> Ok, I tried that but it made no
> From: Jonathan Wakely [mailto:jwak...@fedoraproject.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:14
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> Subject: Re: Why GUI software update tool is broken for me
>
> On 16/06/16 13:39 +, John Florian wrote:
> >Oh cool an
On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 13:39 +, John Florian wrote:
> Oh cool and here I've been waiting to have this available outside of
> GNOME (as a Plasma user). However, I'm confused by my first
> experiment with it:
>
>
> $ sudo pkcon update --only-download
> Getting updates
On 16/06/16 13:39 +, John Florian wrote:
Oh cool and here I've been waiting to have this available outside of GNOME (as
a Plasma user). However, I'm confused by my first experiment with it:
$ sudo pkcon update --only-download
Getting updates [=]
> From: Stephen Gallagher [mailto:sgall...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:51
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Why GUI software update tool is broken for me
>
>
> People *can* use the command-line to get the reboot behavior:
> ```
> p
On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:41 -0400, Russell Doty wrote:
> > Running tracer for a while can really open your eyes to how many
> > things
> > need restarting after normal updates flow.
> >
> > One thing that might make this less annoying to people would be
> > ability
> > to schedule the reboot
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 03:46 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> I don't understand the technical reason for the 1st reboot. The
>> substantial risk for updates is the user environment. If that's killed
>> off even multi-user.target
On 06/15/2016 03:46 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I don't understand the technical reason for the 1st reboot. The
> substantial risk for updates is the user environment. If that's killed
> off even multi-user.target is far less risk to do updates in. But I
> don't see why system-update.target can't be
On 06/15/2016 09:27 AM, Phil Cameron wrote:
On 06/15/2016 05:16 AM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
Id be interested in the original rationale behind this change, as I
say, I
I believe the rationale is that there was no sane way to update running
applications (firefox, at least, would start not working
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 02:36 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/15/2016 01:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, 2016-06-15 at
On 06/15/2016 02:36 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>> On 06/15/2016 01:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:31 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Of course, this comes with its own headaches,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 01:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:31 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> Of course, this comes with its own headaches, since of course if you
>>> are using
>>> an encrypted
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Of course, this comes with its own headaches, since of course if you are using
> an encrypted drive, you need to enter your password twice: once to start the
> update and once for the post-update reboot.
Why not
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:50:06 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Sure and there's encryption as sgallagh mentioned.
There is probably a way to handle the encryption as (at least if there isn't
a kernel update), as this is done already when switching from initramfs
to your
On 06/15/2016 12:31 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> The justification for restarting both before and after installation exists and
> it does make some sense in certain circumstances.
>
> Basically, the problem is that any number of things can change in the state of
> the system while it has
On 06/15/2016 01:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:31 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Of course, this comes with its own headaches, since of course if you
>> are using
>> an encrypted drive, you need to enter your password twice: once to
>> start the
>> update and once
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:49:18 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, it's different historical behavior/tradeoffs. dnf assumes you
will reboot as you need to / restart apps that need restarting.
And there is an extension that will tell you what needs to be restarted.
--
devel
On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:31 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Of course, this comes with its own headaches, since of course if you
> are using
> an encrypted drive, you need to enter your password twice: once to
> start the
> update and once for the post-update reboot. A while ago I was working
>
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:41:42 -0400
Russell Doty wrote:
> Note that the original poster says that he runs dnf -update from the
> command line because it allows him to do what he wants.
>
> Based on the information discussed in this thread, shouldn't dnf also
> force a reboot
On 06/15/2016 12:41 PM, Russell Doty wrote:
> Note that the original poster says that he runs dnf -update from the
> command line because it allows him to do what he wants.
>
> Based on the information discussed in this thread, shouldn't dnf also
> force a reboot before updates?
>
> We have an
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:45:12 -0600
Chris Murphy wrote:
> Laptop users need reminding. A scheduled update has a decent chance of
> not happening because the laptop is sleeping.
Sure and there's encryption as sgallagh mentioned.
> The ability for applications to save
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:39:32 +0200
> Kamil Dudka wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 17:29:02 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> > Dne 15.6.2016 v 10:14 Ade napsal(a):
>> > > Why is this? Well some time ago the
On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 10:27 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:39:32 +0200
> Kamil Dudka wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 17:29:02 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > >
> > > Dne 15.6.2016 v 10:14 Ade napsal(a):
> > > >
> > > > Why is this? Well some
On 06/15/2016 12:27 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> One thing that might make this less annoying to people would be ability
> to schedule the reboot for some off hours time (2am or something) and
> also ability (for gnome at least) to restore apps/windows/session
> again on login.
>
Scheduling the
On 06/15/2016 11:39 AM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 17:29:02 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> Dne 15.6.2016 v 10:14 Ade napsal(a):
>>> Why is this? Well some time ago the behaviour of the tool changed and now
>>> the only way to proceed is to click in "Restart and Install" and this
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:39:32 +0200
Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 17:29:02 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 15.6.2016 v 10:14 Ade napsal(a):
> > > Why is this? Well some time ago the behaviour of the tool
> > > changed and now the only way to proceed is to
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Phil Cameron wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 05:16 AM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
>> * Ade [15/06/2016 10:14] :
>>
>>> Id be interested in the original rationale behind this change, as I say,
>>> I
>>>
>> I believe the rationale is that there was no
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 17:29:02 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 15.6.2016 v 10:14 Ade napsal(a):
> > Why is this? Well some time ago the behaviour of the tool changed and now
> > the only way to proceed is to click in "Restart and Install" and this is
> > NEVER what I want to do. I never want to
Dne 15.6.2016 v 10:14 Ade napsal(a):
> Why is this? Well some time ago the behaviour of the tool changed and now
> the only way to proceed is to click in
> "Restart and Install" and this is NEVER what I want to do. I never want to
> reboot my desktop just to apply updates, Id
> rather apply all
On 15/06/16 09:27 -0400, Phil Cameron wrote:
So when you update an application that is running all you do is unlink
the file name from the old file and link it to the new file. The old
file does not go away because it is open by the running program. When
the program exits, the file is deleted
On 06/15/2016 05:16 AM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Ade [15/06/2016 10:14] :
Id be interested in the original rationale behind this change, as I say, I
I believe the rationale is that there was no sane way to update running
applications (firefox, at least, would start not working in interesting
Joachim Backes wrote:
> On 06/15/16 11:16, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> > I believe the rationale is that there was no sane way to update running
> > applications (firefox, at least, would start not working in interesting
> > ways when you update it after having
* Joachim Backes [15/06/2016 11:22] :
>
> What if you updating the bash? It's always running :-;
No, it isn't. These days, Gnome Software prompts you to reboot,
reboots the machine in a safe mode where nothing much is running,
updates everything, then boots back in normal mode (this is my
On 06/15/16 11:16, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Ade [15/06/2016 10:14] :
Id be interested in the original rationale behind this change, as I say, I
I believe the rationale is that there was no sane way to update running
applications (firefox, at least, would start not working in interesting
ways
* Ade [15/06/2016 10:14] :
>
> Id be interested in the original rationale behind this change, as I say, I
I believe the rationale is that there was no sane way to update running
applications (firefox, at least, would start not working in interesting
ways when you update it after having launched
On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 10:14 +0200, Ade wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I dont really want this to be a negative post, just want to share
> something in order to start a healthy discussion
>
> Background
> Im a Fedora desktop user, have been for many years, going all the way
> back to Fedora Core 1 - I use
Hi all
I dont really want this to be a negative post, just want to share something
in order to start a healthy discussion
*Background*
Im a Fedora desktop user, have been for many years, going all the way back
to Fedora Core 1 - I use Fedora on a daily basis, its my main (in fact only
OS)
38 matches
Mail list logo