Re: More dnf annoyance
- Original Message - From: Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 2:01:27 PM Subject: Re: More dnf annoyance On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:51:47 + (UTC), Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote: dnf --refresh is more like dnf clean expire-cache, which sometimes gives additional updates to plain dnf upgrade, but there still seems some caching involved that keeps it from providing all updates available. Doubtful. dnf update --refresh here (Rawhide) always redownloads the metadata. That's behaviour like running after dnf clean metadata, not dnf clean expire-cache. [1] Neither dnf --refresh upgrade nor dnf clean expire-cache;dnf upgrade will try to download the base Fedora data (F22). Only dnf clean metadata plus dnf upgrade force a full refresh. Rawhide. I refer to Rawhide! I cannot afford spending time on this issue with F22 in addition to Rawhide. dnf --refresh update here **always** redownloads the metadata. Just try it out. --refresh and clean expire-cache result in the same. That also matches the documentation. Both set the metadata some kind of expired but don't really remove the data. Once more: doubtful. Whether --refresh doesn't remove the metadata is not of interest, since it redownloads it afterwards anyway. And whether it matches the documentation remains to be seen. I haven't examined the implementation. Does --refresh really do anything to confirm the checksum of the metadata cache before deciding to redownload? Then why does it redownload always here? It's a bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226724 :-( -- Radek Holý Associate Software Engineer Software Management Team Red Hat Czech -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:51:47 + (UTC), Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote: dnf --refresh is more like dnf clean expire-cache, which sometimes gives additional updates to plain dnf upgrade, but there still seems some caching involved that keeps it from providing all updates available. Doubtful. dnf update --refresh here (Rawhide) always redownloads the metadata. That's behaviour like running after dnf clean metadata, not dnf clean expire-cache. [1] Neither dnf --refresh upgrade nor dnf clean expire-cache;dnf upgrade will try to download the base Fedora data (F22). Only dnf clean metadata plus dnf upgrade force a full refresh. Rawhide. I refer to Rawhide! I cannot afford spending time on this issue with F22 in addition to Rawhide. dnf --refresh update here **always** redownloads the metadata. Just try it out. --refresh and clean expire-cache result in the same. That also matches the documentation. Both set the metadata some kind of expired but don't really remove the data. Once more: doubtful. Whether --refresh doesn't remove the metadata is not of interest, since it redownloads it afterwards anyway. And whether it matches the documentation remains to be seen. I haven't examined the implementation. Does --refresh really do anything to confirm the checksum of the metadata cache before deciding to redownload? Then why does it redownload always here? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: dnf --refresh is more like dnf clean expire-cache, which sometimes gives additional updates to plain dnf upgrade, but there still seems some caching involved that keeps it from providing all updates available. Doubtful. dnf update --refresh here (Rawhide) always redownloads the metadata. That's behaviour like running after dnf clean metadata, not dnf clean expire-cache. [1] Neither dnf --refresh upgrade nor dnf clean expire-cache;dnf upgrade will try to download the base Fedora data (F22). Only dnf clean metadata plus dnf upgrade force a full refresh. Just try it out. --refresh and clean expire-cache result in the same. That also matches the documentation. Both set the metadata some kind of expired but don't really remove the data. dnf clean metadata actually removes all metadata and therefore forces a reload for all repositories. It's more like brute force. :-) Also according the the DNF documentation (FAQ), dnf clean metadata is the recommended way to get latest updates. That matches my experience. Greetings, Andreas -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:21:49 + (UTC), Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote: dnf --refresh is more like dnf clean expire-cache, which sometimes gives additional updates to plain dnf upgrade, but there still seems some caching involved that keeps it from providing all updates available. Doubtful. dnf update --refresh here (Rawhide) always redownloads the metadata. That's behaviour like running after dnf clean metadata, not dnf clean expire-cache. [1] Expired metadata could be reactivated after asking mirror manager whether they are latest. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote: F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. Yes, you are correct. Several people have verified this behavior, they reported this as bug, and according to Fedora and DNF developers it is intentional. dnf --refresh is more like dnf clean expire-cache, which sometimes gives additional updates to plain dnf upgrade, but there still seems some caching involved that keeps it from providing all updates available. dnf clean all does the job, of course, but for that specific purpose, dnf clean metadata is sufficient. Both force dnf to download and rebuild all metadata. The metadata is the key to the solution. Unfortunately, this needs lots of bandwidth and CPU. If you just want fresh updates, there's usually no need to process the big base fedora metadata over and over again. For me, this does the trick: dnf --disablerepo=fedora clean metadata ; dnf upgrade It's pretty fast and gives latest updates. Well, there's still a chance to get redirected to a mirror which isn't synced with latest stuff. But there's not much you can do about that. Greetings, Andreas -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
More dnf annoyance
Hi, F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. Dnf hasn't been working properly since F22, while I had not a single problem with yum ever. Still I have to use dnf clean all before updating, just to be sure to get all available updates. There are bug reports reporting the same behaviour, but no solution. As far as I realise, there isn't a way to get yum back. Any chance that Fedora gets a properly working packet manager in the near future? [root@chiara ~]# dnf --refresh upgrade RPM Fusion for Fedora 22 - Free - Updates 210 kB/s | 29 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 22 - Nonfree - Updates 149 kB/s | 15 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 22 - Free 1.3 MB/s | 551 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 22 - Nonfree 746 kB/s | 170 kB 00:00 Last metadata expiration check performed 0:00:00 ago on Tue Aug 11 10:24:20 2015. Dependencies resolved. == Package Arch Version Repository Size == Installing: geany-libgeany x86_64 1.25-2.fc22 updates 1.0 M Upgrading: geany x86_64 1.25-2.fc22 updates 2.8 M gnumericx86_64 1:1.12.23-1.fc22updates 12 M goffice x86_64 0.10.23-1.fc22 updates 1.9 M libgudev1 x86_64 219-21.fc22 updates 63 k libgudev1-devel x86_64 219-21.fc22 updates 76 k libsolv x86_64 0.6.11-2.fc22 updates 333 k qtsingleapplication x86_64 2.6.1-23.fc22 updates 42 k systemd x86_64 219-21.fc22 updates 5.9 M systemd-compat-libs x86_64 219-21.fc22 updates 136 k systemd-devel x86_64 219-21.fc22 updates 163 k systemd-libsx86_64 219-21.fc22 updates 351 k systemd-python x86_64 219-21.fc22 updates 96 k systemd-python3 x86_64 219-21.fc22 updates 98 k Transaction Summary ==
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 13:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/11/2015 12:51 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. So two update commands at different times give different results? IIUC, you are misunderstanding. The issues behind this are - dnf --refetch is refetching different versions of metadata from different (and differently sync'ed and/or broken) mirrors - fedora's mirrorlists are pointing to mirrors being out of sync. What matters is whether dnf is seeing the same state the two times it runs. In this case it clearly isn't. That can be due to delayed syncing or simply to updates appearing between one run and the next. In addition to that, https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org seems to have been down and inaccessible for several hours, last weekend, which caused additional issues with dnf (and yum). Same result. If dnf is run twice you can't guarantee it will give the same result. That's an inherent feature of loosely distributed systems (where there isn't a distributed consensus protocol). Obviously the wider apart the two runs, the more differences will tend to appear, but the presence of differences does not in itself indicate a problem. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On 08/11/2015 12:51 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. So two update commands at different times give different results? IIUC, you are misunderstanding. The issues behind this are - dnf --refetch is refetching different versions of metadata from different (and differently sync'ed and/or broken) mirrors - fedora's mirrorlists are pointing to mirrors being out of sync. In addition to that, https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org seems to have been down and inaccessible for several hours, last weekend, which caused additional issues with dnf (and yum). Ralf -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:50:02 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Last Sunday, I've had a case, where I resorted to rm -rf /var/cache/dnf because neither dnf clean all nor dnf --refresh seems to have worked. No matter what I did dnf seems have refetched the same outdated mirror presenting me the same updates. Out of pure coincidence I'd say. After a dnf clean all, some files are left below /var/cache/dnf, but take a look yourself. No repodata files are left, and nothing like the previous mirror you've been assigned to. Barring the fact Fedora mirrors seem to be broken quite often, these day, with dnf, the situation seems to have worsened. AFAICT, it doesn't correctly validate metadata and/or seems to prefer to refetch broken/outdated/dead mirrors. Mirroring is a difficult problem. Mirror admins need to know exactly what they are doing. Or else they offer the latest repodata without having mirrored all packages. Yum has choked on that problem often. Observing Yum and DNF printing lots of errors while trying to find a usable mirror, casts a shadow on the Fedora products as a whole. One may think that if mirror manager knows the checksums of the last and previous repo metadata releases, it could assign the package tools to a matching mirror that is up-to-date. But either that isn't done, or it's broken. The user gets the impression that the mirrors are out of sync way too often. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. So two update commands at different times give different results? Dnf hasn't been working properly since F22, while I had not a single problem with yum ever. Still I have to use dnf clean all before updating, just to be sure to get all available updates. No you don't, as has been explained several times recently. You can use clean metadata or --refresh. Doing both is redundant. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On 08/11/2015 12:16 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:35:04 +0200 Heinz Diehl wrote: F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. Last Sunday, I've had a case, where I resorted to rm -rf /var/cache/dnf because neither dnf clean all nor dnf --refresh seems to have worked. No matter what I did dnf seems have refetched the same outdated mirror presenting me the same updates. I don't think that's new with dnf. I've seen similar from yum. Well, IIRC, in its infancy yum has had similar issues. The common work around was to yum clean metadata, then. Barring the fact Fedora mirrors seem to be broken quite often, these day, with dnf, the situation seems to have worsened. AFAICT, it doesn't correctly validate metadata and/or seems to prefer to refetch broken/outdated/dead mirrors. It all depends on which mirrors it picked to get the data from and the timing of mirrors getting updated. Which only means one thing - What I wrote above ;) Ralf -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:35:04 +0200 Heinz Diehl wrote: F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. I don't think that's new with dnf. I've seen similar from yum. It all depends on which mirrors it picked to get the data from and the timing of mirrors getting updated. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On 11.08.2015, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: So two update commands at different times give different results? If two update commands issued directly after another qualify as at different times, then yes. In fact, there was not more than max. one minute between the two. Dnf hasn't been working properly since F22, while I had not a single problem with yum ever. Still I have to use dnf clean all before updating, just to be sure to get all available updates. No you don't, as has been explained several times recently. You can use clean metadata or --refresh. Doing both is redundant. Obviously, you haven't read my mail with enough attention. The time between the commands is clearly stated, and so are the commands itself. I already used the --refresh parameter, and it wasn't enough to get all available updates. Thus clean all. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On 11.08.2015, Michael Schwendt wrote: Yet two completely separate contacts with Fedora's metalink server. Trouble-shooting these kinds of problems would need to include a closer look at what mirrors you are assigned to in both cases. Ok, I see. So what command should I use to keep my system updated? Usually, I update once a week (or two). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:35:56PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: Yet two completely separate contacts with Fedora's metalink server. Trouble-shooting these kinds of problems would need to include a closer look at what mirrors you are assigned to in both cases. Ok, I see. So what command should I use to keep my system updated? Usually, I update once a week (or two). Usually, just plain `dnf upgrade`. If there's an urgent update, you might want to worry about the kind of issues you're seeing here; otherwise, it'll eventually settle itself out. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On 08/11/2015 01:32 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 13:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/11/2015 12:51 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. So two update commands at different times give different results? IIUC, you are misunderstanding. The issues behind this are - dnf --refetch is refetching different versions of metadata from different (and differently sync'ed and/or broken) mirrors - fedora's mirrorlists are pointing to mirrors being out of sync. What matters is whether dnf is seeing the same state the two times it runs. In this case it clearly isn't. Exactly. With dnf --refresh it often does not see the same state. However, it should! The fact it does not see the same state, means https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org pushing bogus information. In addition to that, https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org seems to have been down and inaccessible for several hours, last weekend, which caused additional issues with dnf (and yum). Same result. If dnf is run twice you can't guarantee it will give the same result. If dnf and mirror-management was functional, then - except in those rare situations when the master has just been updated - they must point to mirrors carrying an identical state. That's an inherent feature of loosely distributed systems (where there isn't a distributed consensus protocol). Obviously the wider apart the two runs, the more differences will tend to appear, but the presence of differences does not in itself indicate a problem. My assumption is: mirror-manager is dysfunctional and dnf isn't sufficiently robust. Ralf -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:41:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 11.08.2015, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: So two update commands at different times give different results? If two update commands issued directly after another qualify as at different times, then yes. In fact, there was not more than max. one minute between the two. Yet two completely separate contacts with Fedora's metalink server. Trouble-shooting these kinds of problems would need to include a closer look at what mirrors you are assigned to in both cases. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 15:41 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 11.08.2015, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: So two update commands at different times give different results? If two update commands issued directly after another qualify as at different times, then yes. In fact, there was not more than max. one minute between the two. Not relevant, as mschwe...@gmail.com has explained. Dnf hasn't been working properly since F22, while I had not a single problem with yum ever. Still I have to use dnf clean all before updating, just to be sure to get all available updates. No you don't, as has been explained several times recently. You can use clean metadata or --refresh. Doing both is redundant. Obviously, you haven't read my mail with enough attention. The time between the commands is clearly stated, and so are the commands itself. I already used the --refresh parameter, and it wasn't enough to get all available updates. Thus clean all. Once again, clean metadata, not clean all (unless you like refetching rpms you already have). poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On 08/11/2015 04:53 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:35:56PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: Yet two completely separate contacts with Fedora's metalink server. Trouble-shooting these kinds of problems would need to include a closer look at what mirrors you are assigned to in both cases. Ok, I see. So what command should I use to keep my system updated? Usually, I update once a week (or two). Usually, just plain `dnf upgrade`. If there's an urgent update, you might want to worry about the kind of issues you're seeing here; otherwise, it'll eventually settle itself out. This was the case last weekend: firefox-39.0.3 Ralf -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: More dnf annoyance
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 15:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/11/2015 01:32 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 13:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/11/2015 12:51 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*. So two update commands at different times give different results? IIUC, you are misunderstanding. The issues behind this are - dnf --refetch is refetching different versions of metadata from different (and differently sync'ed and/or broken) mirrors - fedora's mirrorlists are pointing to mirrors being out of sync. What matters is whether dnf is seeing the same state the two times it runs. In this case it clearly isn't. Exactly. With dnf --refresh it often does not see the same state. However, it should! The fact it does not see the same state, means https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org pushing bogus information. In addition to that, https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org seems to have been down and inaccessible for several hours, last weekend, which caused additional issues with dnf (and yum). Same result. If dnf is run twice you can't guarantee it will give the same result. If dnf and mirror-management was functional, then - except in those rare situations when the master has just been updated - they must point to mirrors carrying an identical state. Only if all the mirrors you access are in sync with each other. Without a consensus protocol this cannot be guaranteed. That's an inherent feature of loosely distributed systems (where there isn't a distributed consensus protocol). Obviously the wider apart the two runs, the more differences will tend to appear, but the presence of differences does not in itself indicate a problem. My assumption is: mirror-manager is dysfunctional and dnf isn't sufficiently robust. Robustness can mean different things, at least two of which are: 1) dnf always gets the latest updates any reachable mirror has 2) All the mirrors show the same updates so dnf can get any of them These two criteria are not the same, unless there's a consensus protocol, which I'd lay serious money there isn't as it's expensive to do and is fragile in the face of network outages. I'm not saying that dnf couldn't be better than it is (I've had problems similar to what you report), but it cannot be perfect in these conditions. Remember that yum wasn't either, it's just more mature. I suggest you check out the vast literature on distributed synchronization if you want to know more about this stuff. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
