Dne 2.8.2015 v 18:15 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:33:39 -0400
Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 July 2015 at 17:27, Radek Holy rh...@redhat.com wrote:
One can say that the mirrors should
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
So, you are proposing we do things exactly as we are now, but also keep
around all previous copies of the packages in the repos (but not in the
repodata)?
I'm not sure if that setup would work with dnf. I think it requires
whatever mirror(s) it uses to
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:29:30 +0200
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
This is actually not true.
Well, as I noted in my reply, I wasn't actually sure what was being
proposed here.
The repodata should contain just the latest
version, but if I have slightly older version of metadata
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 05:53:15 +0200
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* There could be some nasty issues with keeping known
vulnerable/broken packages around. ie, foo-1.0 has a severe
security bug, foo-1.1 fixes it. You now just need to trick someone
into
Dne 3.8.2015 v 17:45 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:29:30 +0200
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
This is actually not true.
Well, as I noted in my reply, I wasn't actually sure what was being
proposed here.
The repodata should contain just the latest
version, but if
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:52:01 -0400
Bill Nottingham nott...@splat.cc wrote:
At some point, it might be worth doing cost/benefit analysis on
continuing down our existing mirroring strategy and designing for the
limits of that vs. the application of some sponsor funds towards the
use of more
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* There could be some nasty issues with keeping known vulnerable/broken
packages around. ie, foo-1.0 has a severe security bug, foo-1.1 fixes
it. You now just need to trick someone into downgrading or directly
installing foo-1.0 (which is in normal repos and signed and
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:33:39 -0400
Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 July 2015 at 17:27, Radek Holy rh...@redhat.com wrote:
One can say that the mirrors should keep the older versions
I would
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2015 at 17:27, Radek Holy rh...@redhat.com wrote:
One can say that the mirrors should keep the older versions
I would completely agree. As we can't rely that packages referenced in
metadata just one day old
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:56:48 AM
Subject: Re: gross DNF bandwidth inefficiency if filesystem space limited
Radek Holy wrote:
Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:46:16AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.07.2015 um 05:47 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Radek Holy wrote:
Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
fixed in
On 31 July 2015 at 17:27, Radek Holy rh...@redhat.com wrote:
One can say that the mirrors should keep the older versions
I would completely agree. As we can't rely that packages referenced in
metadata just one day old still being on the mirrors means that
PackageKit has to download hundreds of
Am 31.07.2015 um 05:47 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Radek Holy wrote:
Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
fixed in dnf-1.0.2.
I still don't understand why we don't just enable keepcache
Am 31.07.2015 um 10:46 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 31.07.2015 um 05:47 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Radek Holy wrote:
Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
fixed in dnf-1.0.2.
I still don't
Radek Holy wrote:
Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
fixed in dnf-1.0.2.
I still don't understand why we don't just enable keepcache by default. Even
after a successful update/install, deleting the cached packages is a major
data loss because it prevents
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Radek Holy wrote:
Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
fixed in dnf-1.0.2.
I still don't understand why we don't just enable keepcache by default. Even
after a successful update/install,
Johnny Robeson composed on 2015-07-30 03:25 (UTC-0400):
On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 03:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
# dnf upgrade
(dnf nearly exhausts freespace downloading all packages before installing
any packages)
dnf then reports package xxx needs ##MB on / filesystem and exits without
- Original Message -
From: Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:21:19 AM
Subject: gross DNF bandwidth inefficiency if filesystem space limited
# dnf upgrade
(dnf nearly exhausts freespace downloading all packages before
On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 03:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
# dnf upgrade
(dnf nearly exhausts freespace downloading all packages before
installing any
packages)
dnf then reports package xxx needs ##MB on / filesystem and exits
without
doing any installing
dnf all deletes downloaded packages
19 matches
Mail list logo
