On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
> > > Am 27.09.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Neal Gompa: > >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: >> >> This is quite tiresome. dnf clearly isn't "completely broken". >> It >> may have a bug, but the correct place to put that is in Bugzilla. >> >> >> a package manager which pretends "nothing to do" after rm -rf >> /var/cache/dnf/* while there are two fresh builds is by definition >> broken >> >> My question to you is... why are you doing "rm -rf /var/cache/dnf/*"? >> Why not just do "sudo dnf <action> --refresh"? That forces DNF to >> actually look at everything again. If your goal is to clean everything >> out, then "sudo dnf clean all" would do the trick too (which also worked >> in the yum days) >> > > how often do you ask that question again? > > I ask it because sometimes people are doing things that are a fat-finger away from being really bad when it isn't necessary. If there are better and safer ways to do things, I usually ask why they aren't using them. Sometimes there's a good reason, other times there isn't. As for the frequency in which I ask it, usually not that often anymore, but it used to come up more often. > a empty "/var/cache/yum|dnf" is a by definition and unconditional empty > cache Perhaps so, but how is DNF supposed to know it's empty? When it hits and has a file not found? I know that when I do a "dnf clean all", it removes the solv cache and the metadata cache and writes a file into /var/cache/dnf that indicates that the data has expired, which prompts DNF to pull everything on the next run. > why should i trust a software obviously not working with the basic > commands right in case of other ones? > > Maybe because it isn't obvious. Frankly, "rm -rf /var/cache/dnf/*" is a bad idea most of the time. Sledgehammers aren't needed here. :) > and BTW we are not a Ubuntu - what's up with all that "sudo" stuff - if i > am root then i am root, that's it > > Erm, we've had the option in Fedora to set up sudo at install time for quite a while now. I've used it all the time because I rarely need to be superuser beyond an action or two. Sure, I could just switch to root, but I don't need to unless I'm doing a lot of actions that require superuser privileges in quick succession. You can replace it with "su -c" or you can just use it as a marker to indicate you need to be root for it. -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct