Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote: >> >> yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when >> you are >> installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on better

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 18.01.2016 um 13:39 schrieb Heiko Adams: Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 12:27 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote: yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when you are installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 18.01.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: And the fact that /var/log/dnf.rpm.log doesn't show updates done by PK is just annoying. Isn't there a single log file I can look at to see what was updated, and when? currently no because dnf, PK and yum-deprecated using different logging

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 07:05 -0500 schrieb Honza Šilhan: > > From: "James Hogarth" > > The autoremove reference might be the well known issue with > > packagekit, not > > dnf, that is not marking packages as installed rather than > > dependencies. > > > > The default

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Seg, 2016-01-18 at 07:37 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote: > > > > > > yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging > > > [1] or when > > > you are

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:52 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > On 18 Jan 2016 06:33, "Igor Gnatenko" wrote: >> >> I hope Heiko Adams and Reindl Harald should co-operate and write usable >> and bug free package manager. >> >> Related to topic: Please

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 18.01.2016 um 02:32 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote: But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable since a default package manager and all of its features have to work absolutely reliable. When was

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On 18 January 2016 at 01:32, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote: >> But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable >> since a default package manager and all of its features have to work >>

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 18.01.2016 um 04:16 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:53:00 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: ...snip... why? because you don't type "dnf install kernel" instead "dnf upgrade" and "kernel-headers" *is never installed* in multiple versions Sure, you want

Re: dnf still is unuseable

> From: "James Hogarth" > On 18 Jan 2016 06:33, "Igor Gnatenko" < i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > I hope Heiko Adams and Reindl Harald should co-operate and write usable and > > bug free package manager. > > > > Related to topic: Please prepare full list of

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 18.01.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: And the fact that /var/log/dnf.rpm.log doesn't show updates done by PK is just annoying. Isn't there a single log file I can look at to see what was updated, and when? currently no because dnf, PK and yum-deprecated using different logging

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote: >> >> yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when >> you are >> installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on better

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 12:27 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote: > > yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] > > or when you are > > installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on > > better integration > >

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 07:05 -0500 schrieb Honza Šilhan: > > From: "James Hogarth" > > The autoremove reference might be the well known issue with > > packagekit, not > > dnf, that is not marking packages as installed rather than > > dependencies. > > > > The default

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On 18/01/16 03:28 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:52 AM, James Hogarth wrote: On a side note it'd be nice if pk just called out to dnf so that they have a common backend which would prevent behaviour like this and would result in sharing a history

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote: yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when you are installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on better integration between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use this

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 18.01.2016 um 13:39 schrieb Heiko Adams: Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 12:27 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote: yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when you are installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:22:11 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: > the case of *that thread* was a ordinary "dnf upgrade" with no local > packages involved ok. I think we are talking about different things then. I was addressing the issue where you download kernel rpms and dnf

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 18:23:44 -0500 Johnny Robeson wrote: > agreed. This is a major reason I choose not to participate on Fedora > lists. I can't trust that even the limited code of conduct that exists > will even be enforced. Yet, you read and are participating here?

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 08:46:06AM +, Ian Malone wrote: > On 18 January 2016 at 01:32, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote: > >> But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable > >> since

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On 18 Jan 2016 06:33, "Igor Gnatenko" wrote: > > I hope Heiko Adams and Reindl Harald should co-operate and write usable and bug free package manager. > > Related to topic: Please prepare full list of bugs which you think critical for you and write to each how to

Re: dnf still is unuseable

I hope Heiko Adams and Reindl Harald should co-operate and write usable and bug free package manager. Related to topic: Please prepare full list of bugs which you think critical for you and write to each how to reproduce it. P.S. autoremove works here fine (fresh 23). On Sun, Jan 17, 2016,

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to yum? > > > > ongoing problems in the core-task solve dependencies is not > > production  > > ready AND

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 17.01.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:27:02 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: for localupdate i switched back to yum-deprecated long ago, but for ordinary kernel updates pretend unsolved deps is simply unacceptable *no* i am not the only one -

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald: > may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to yum? > > ongoing problems in the core-task solve dependencies is not > production  > ready AND REMOVE THE DEPRECATED WARNINGS for "package-cleanup" and  >

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:27:02 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: > for localupdate i switched back to yum-deprecated long ago, but for > ordinary kernel updates pretend unsolved deps is simply unacceptable > > *no* i am not the only one - see karma comments for 4.3.3-300.fc23

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 17.01.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: >> >> I'd encourage you to re-read our code of conduct >> ( https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct ) and try and be more >> respectful in bugs and here. We are all trying

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 18.01.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:01:13 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: ...snip... "dnf update *.rpm" is the way which has to work Why? It works fine as a install. It's installing a new kernel, since kernels can have many versions

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 00:00 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > > may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to > > > yum? > > > > > > ongoing

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:01:13 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: ...snip... > "dnf update *.rpm" is the way which has to work Why? It works fine as a install. It's installing a new kernel, since kernels can have many versions installed at a time it makes more sense for it to be

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 00:00 +0100 schrieb Pierre-Yves Chibon: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > > may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to > > > yum? > > > > > >

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote: > But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable > since a default package manager and all of its features have to work > absolutely reliable. When was the last time you saw a program bigger then /bin/true that was

Re: dnf still is unuseable

Am 18.01.2016 um 00:08 schrieb Neal Gompa: On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.01.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: I'd encourage you to re-read our code of conduct ( https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct ) and try and be more respectful

Re: dnf still is unuseable

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:53:00 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: ...snip... > > why? > > because you don't type "dnf install kernel" instead "dnf upgrade" and > "kernel-headers" *is never installed* in multiple versions Sure, you want upgrade/update to update installonly pkgs