Re: dnf is completly broken

> From: "Germano Massullo" <germano.massu...@gmail.com> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 5:43:42 PM > Subject: Re: dnf is completly broken :) > Il 04/10/2015 16:3

Re: dnf is completly broken

Il 04/10/2015 16:32, Neal Gompa ha scritto: > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Germano Massullo > >wrote: > > In past days I experienced the following problem > "dnf install" exits if there is a non existing package in the >

Re: dnf is completly broken

In past days I experienced the following problem "dnf install" exits if there is a non existing package in the requested packages list" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268606 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Germano Massullo < germano.massu...@gmail.com> wrote: > In past days I experienced the following problem > "dnf install" exits if there is a non existing package in the requested > packages list" > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268606 > > ​Do you

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, 2015-09-27 at 13:39 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > BTW, I don't like dnf either. I think it doesn't actually solve any > of > the real problems of yum, and the whole "recommends" thing is > destabilizing as hell. Weak dependencies are a new RPM feature, nothing particularly to do with

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.09.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Neal Gompa: > >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: >> >> This is quite tiresome. dnf

Re: dnf is completly broken

You may want to give a look to https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/wiki/Hacking#logging -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > >> This is quite tiresome. dnf clearly isn't "completely broken". It >> may have a bug, but the correct place to put that is in Bugzilla. >> > > a package

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.09.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Neal Gompa: >> >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: >> >> This is quite tiresome. dnf

Re: dnf is completly broken

There is a bugzilla, ranting on a mailing list every time you hit a bug makes you an unlikeable person who doesn't get taken seriously. Thanks, Josef On Sep 26, 2015 10:21 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote: > besides https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888 and the >

Re: dnf is completly broken

Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: This is quite tiresome. dnf clearly isn't "completely broken". It may have a bug, but the correct place to put that is in Bugzilla. a package manager which pretends "nothing to do" after rm -rf /var/cache/dnf/* while there are two fresh

Re: dnf is completly broken

Am 27.09.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Neal Gompa: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: This is quite tiresome. dnf clearly isn't "completely broken". It may have a bug, but the correct place to put that is in

Re: dnf is completly broken

Am 27.09.2015 um 19:08 schrieb Josef Bacik: This is unnecessarily combative and derogatory to a fellow distribution, why are you going out of your way to be mean spirited? because i am tired of regressions over regressinos from replacements of replacements tyring to sell me improvements

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.09.2015 um 19:08 schrieb Josef Bacik: >> >> This is unnecessarily combative and derogatory to a fellow >> distribution, why are you going out of your way to be mean spirited? > > > because i am tired of

Re: dnf is completly broken

Being tired doesn't justify acting like my 5 year old. Thanks, Josef On September 27, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 27.09.2015 um 19:08 schrieb Josef Bacik: > This is unnecessarily combative and derogatory to a fellow > distribution, why are you going out

Re: dnf is completly broken

This is quite tiresome. dnf clearly isn't "completely broken". It may have a bug, but the correct place to put that is in Bugzilla. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 04:21:08 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > besides https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888 and the With all due respect, there's way too much to read in there without clear comments that explain your thoughts. Sometimes, full output in a terminal can be

Re: dnf is completly broken

Am 27.09.2015 um 13:16 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 04:21:08 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: besides https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888 and the With all due respect, there's way too much to read in there without clear comments that explain your thoughts.

dnf is completly broken

besides https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888 and the ridicolous size of /var/cache/dnf/ in genereal it's unacceptable that "dnf -v update dbmail-3.1.17-3.fc22.20150927.rh.3.1.17.x86_64.rpm dbmail-manpages-3.1.17-3.fc22.20150927.rh.3.1.17.x86_64.rpm