On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 02:39:25PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > On 20.06.2014 14:11, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > Am 20.06.2014 14:04, schrieb Tim Lauridsen: > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Dennis Gilmore <den...@ausil.us > >> <mailto:den...@ausil.us>> wrote: > >> > >> In testing dnf on rawhide I nearly always do "dnf clean metadata && > >> dnf update" purely because I found most of > >> the time dnfs metadata was out of date. To me dnf fetching the > >> metadata behind the scenes just doesn't work > >> right. But I'm not sure that me or rawhide fits into the experience > >> dnf is trying to give. > >> > >> Dennis > >> > >> > >> Dnf-0.5.2 has a --refresh option, there will a check if the repo metadata > >> is newer than the cached one. > >> > >> so. > >> > >> dnf update --refresh will check and update metadata if needed > > > > *that* would be a useful default instead background-refreshes > > > > I think these are two separate issues. Independent of the background > refreshes dnf should always check if its current view of the world is > up-to-date (that is the data in its cache is current). > This can be fairly important when it comes to security issues. When a > fatal exploit is fixed in a package you don't want dnf to say that there > are not updates available when this is in fact not true.
Agreed. In fact, when I'm doing updates (which doesn't happen as frequently as it should due to the disruption to work it causes) I want to be absolutely sure I'm not working out of a stale cache--I often do "yum clean expire-cache; yum update" since I know I can trust that to give me the latest updates. It would be nice if I could just trust dnf to do the right thing without resorting to extra command line arguments. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
