When I was running f19 beta, I mostly ignored this, but I've
done a distro-sync now and the update I just did once again
got a slew of deltas do not match errors:
Finishing delta rebuilds of 118 package(s) (222 M)
delta does not match installed data==-] 2.9 MB/s | 96 MB 00:43 ETA
del
On 07/04/13 06:33, Tom Horsley wrote:
> When I was running f19 beta, I mostly ignored this, but I've
> done a distro-sync now and the update I just did once again
> got a slew of deltas do not match errors:
Well, first of all, you're coming from a "beta" environment and you were
"warned" about po
On 07/03/2013 03:33 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
Should I file a bugzilla against yum (or something else)?
Have you searched Bugzilla for yum related bugs to see if this has
already been reported?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
htt
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 07:09:41 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> If they are installed, and you don't know why or if you need themyou can
> always un-install. If you don't want to un-install them you can always "yum
> reinstall" them.
Of course they are installed - it wouldn't be trying to update th
On 07/04/13 07:25, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 07:09:41 +0800
> Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>> If they are installed, and you don't know why or if you need themyou can
>> always un-install. If you don't want to un-install them you can always "yum
>> reinstall" them.
> Of course they are
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 07:28:13 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> They "work" finebut something is amiss to the point where yum can't
> update using the delta. So.why not just reinstall them and affect a
> "reset"?
>
> That's is what I would do
Why? Yum already downloaded the rpm entire and
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:23:27 -0700
Joe Zeff wrote:
> Have you searched Bugzilla for yum related bugs to see if this has
> already been reported?
I can't find one that looks like this. There were some
earlier ones about yum not downloading the whole rpm
but just trying to rebuild from the delta o
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> When I was running f19 beta, I mostly ignored this, but I've
> done a distro-sync now and the update I just did once again
> got a slew of deltas do not match errors:
FWIW I've noticed this too.
> I can assure you, I am not manually modifying
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 18:33 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> I can assure you, I am not manually modifying anything installed by
> those packages to cause this mismatch. I do notice they are all
> 32 bit packages, but I'm running 64 bit. Is yum trying to apply
> a 64 bit delta to a 32 bit package or som
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:36:25 +0300
Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> I believe that's exactly what yum is doing. Now that yum-presto has
> been merged into yum for Fedora 19, your best bet would be to file a bug
> against yum itself.
Yea, I might as well. At least I might get a reason why it isn't
a bug
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 08:55 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:36:25 +0300
> Jonathan Dieter wrote:
>
> > I believe that's exactly what yum is doing. Now that yum-presto has
> > been merged into yum for Fedora 19, your best bet would be to file a bug
> > against yum itself.
>
> Y
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:48:30 +0300
Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> I found the mistake and I've posted a patch to that bug that should fix
> it.
Cool! So it really is a bug. Thanks for the patch!
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://
On 07/04/2013 05:55 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
Yea, I might as well. At least I might get a reason why it isn't
a bug when they close it :-).
Judging by my own recent experience, the next time you hear anything
about it is when they close it as WONTFIX when F 19 reaches EOL.
--
users mailing list
Am 04.07.2013 00:33, schrieb Tom Horsley:
> When I was running f19 beta, I mostly ignored this, but I've
> done a distro-sync now and the update I just did once again
> got a slew of deltas do not match errors:
>
> Finishing delta rebuilds of 118 package(s) (222 M)
> delta does not match install
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 00:55 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 14 out of 118 - who cares?
>
> so there was some invalid delta-files - that's why yum is designed
> to fall back to the ordinary full RPM in such cases
> > Should I file a bugzilla against yum (or something else)?
>
> clearly: NO
The i
Hi
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 07/04/2013 05:55 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
>
>> Yea, I might as well. At least I might get a reason why it isn't
>> a bug when they close it :-).
>>
>
> Judging by my own recent experience, the next time you hear anything about
> it is when t
On 07/05/2013 01:07 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
No need to be negative. Generally speaking, there are hundreds of bugs
fixed via updates every release.
Funny thing, though, I keep reporting crashes but I almost never get any
feedback except for a bot reporting that they're closing the bug at th
On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:15:37 -0700
Joe Zeff wrote:
...snip...
> When was the last time you got a reply from anybody that fast on the
> Fedora Bugzilla?
I've had a number of cases of people replying to bugs within a day.
For my part I try and always reply on bugs filed on my packages.
As fa
On 07/05/2013 01:35 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
As far as ABRT reports, it's a pretty sad record, as I always reply to
them and ask the reporter what they were doing and if they can
duplicate the crash. I'd say something like 95% of them never reply. :(
I guess, then, that I've never had an issue wi
19 matches
Mail list logo
