> > I responded to your comments in the bugzila:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867389
> >
> > Regarding Dropbox, it is broken for at least a month after each Fedora
> > release, regularly. For F19 they added their repository just very
> > recently. You can't force them to fix it.
On 08/05/2013 03:58 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Again I would caution you against just blindly changing defaults to be
incompatible with yum ... even if the yum defaults are bad, every
incompatibility incurs a cost for all users (and it will exist as long
as yum and dnf are being used ... so like 10
> Again I would caution you against just blindly changing defaults to be
> incompatible with yum ... even if the yum defaults are bad, every
> incompatibility incurs a cost for all users (and it will exist as long
> as yum and dnf are being used ... so like 10 years from now). At worst
> speak wit
On 08/02/2013 02:28 AM, Ed Marshall wrote:
In the dnf case, it likely doesn't matter; I don't think dnf has grown
support yet for repo cost/priority yet, has it?
No, not yet, that's one of the things waiting to happen still:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967798
(I was a little
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Ales Kozumplik wrote:
> On 08/01/2013 02:36 AM, Ed Marshall wrote:
>
>> Also, consider cases where repository priorities are in use; a
>> lower-priority repo that's unreachable may cause unexpected/damaging
>> results for the administrator in cases where there's a
On 1 August 2013 08:41, Ales Kozumplik wrote:
> In cases like this it would be a good idea for the high priority repo to set
> skip_if_unavailable = False.
100% agreed.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Cod
On 08/01/2013 12:06 AM, James Antill wrote:
Also a lot of errors become "silent" errors (so things are slow and
don't work well instead of explicitly saying: foo repo. is broken).
Indeed are the dropbox repos. likely to be broken, or would someone fix
them if they knew? Should users have them
On 08/01/2013 02:36 AM, Ed Marshall wrote:
Also, consider cases where repository priorities are in use; a
lower-priority repo that's unreachable may cause unexpected/damaging
results for the administrator in cases where there's a package version
mismatch.
In cases like this it would be a good i
On 01/08/13 02:36, Ed Marshall wrote:
> Also, consider cases where repository priorities are in use; a
> lower-priority repo that's unreachable may cause unexpected/damaging
> results for the administrator in cases where there's a package version
> mismatch.
>
regarding priorities/costs, I filed a
Also, consider cases where repository priorities are in use; a
lower-priority repo that's unreachable may cause unexpected/damaging
results for the administrator in cases where there's a package version
mismatch.
(This is actually a real case for me: in an environment I work in, a
lower-priority r
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:26 +0200, Ales Kozumplik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've pushed new DNF version to F19 [1] and Rawhide today. There's only
> little changes but the default value for repos' skip_if_unavailable has
> changed and is enabled now. This is because recently an ailing Dropbox
> repo
Hello,
I've pushed new DNF version to F19 [1] and Rawhide today. There's only
little changes but the default value for repos' skip_if_unavailable has
changed and is enabled now. This is because recently an ailing Dropbox
repo has made many fine DNF processes end too soon for no good reason [3]
12 matches
Mail list logo
