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 step,
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
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
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 Mirror manager assigning to an out-of-date mirror?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, no
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 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 moving
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 often
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 remains
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
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 available.
That
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
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 that in all
Suvayu Ali fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 07:43:49PM +, Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 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
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 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
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 a bug
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 22:38:22 -0400
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 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.
On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 02:23:34AM +, Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
Suvayu Ali fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com 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.
Suvayu Ali fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com 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
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 would have
On 07/23/2015 08:28 AM, Radek Holy wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de
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
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
Open
- Original Message -
From: Rick Stevens ri...@alldigital.com
To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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, 21 Jul
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 from
- Original Message -
From: Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de
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 Ali wrote:
I usually update
- Original Message -
From: Suvayu Ali fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com
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:
There is a timer
- Original Message -
From: Radek Holy rh...@redhat.com
To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:01:24 AM
Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
- Original Message -
From: Ron Yorston r...@frippery.org
- Original Message -
From: Radek Holy rh...@redhat.com
To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:01:24 AM
Subject: Re: dnf update vs Software Udpates
- Original Message -
From: Ron Yorston r...@frippery.org
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't
- Original Message -
From: Ron Yorston r...@frippery.org
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 the harm in getting
updates few
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
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. :-)
FWIW, I'm
- Original Message -
From: Ed Greshko ed.gres...@greshko.com
To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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, dnf update
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 latest
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 metadata is
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 getting
updates
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, the
On 07/22/2015 10:38 AM, Maurizio Marini wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:33:27 -0400
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
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 just
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:33:27 -0400
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
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
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 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
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 the
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 mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
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 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 -- `dnf
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
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
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 09:32 PM, Ron Yorston wrote:
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
On 07/22/2015 09:41 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/22/2015 09:32 PM, Ron Yorston wrote:
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
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
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 change
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 too
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Suvayu Ali fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com
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
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
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
On Jul 22, 2015 6:52 PM, Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com 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
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
- Original Message -
From: Suvayu Ali fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com
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 Jul 2015 10:01:37
Suvayu, Matthew, you rock guys, thanks!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 21:33 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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
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
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
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 will be
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 pepeb...@gmail.com wrote:
This is weird.
Software Updates on the Control Panel says that there are 39
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:00:16AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Javier Perez pepeb...@gmail.com 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
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
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:01:37 +0200
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 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:
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 pepeb...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is weird.
Software Updates on the Control Panel says that there are 39 updates
available
But
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:36:01AM +0200, Maurizio Marini wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:01:37 +0200
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 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 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 pepeb...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is weird.
Software Updates on the
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 pepeb...@gmail.com 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
74 matches
Mail list logo
