Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 7/4/23 11:49, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:32 AM Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 09:46:26AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>> I don't think there's a formal change filed yet. >>> >>> Matthew: Did you want to do that? Or would you like me or someone else

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:32 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 09:46:26AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I don't think there's a formal change filed yet. > > > > Matthew: Did you want to do that? Or would you like me or someone else > > to do so? > > I would love someone else

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 09:46:26AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I don't think there's a formal change filed yet. > > Matthew: Did you want to do that? Or would you like me or someone else > to do so? I would love someone else to do so, but if no one else wants to, I can. :) -- Matthew Miller

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 11:06:15PM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote: > Any update? Is this being done? I don't think there's a formal change filed yet. Matthew: Did you want to do that? Or would you like me or someone else to do so? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Any update? Is this being done? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 7:06 AM Geraldo Simião Kutz wrote: > > Testing F38 KDE spin today, I see this: > Delta RPMs reduced 235.2 MB to 23.8 MB (89.9%) > > So, it seems we do still have some cornercases when deltaRPM shows its value. Not really. That's local dis, but the aggregate burden of

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Testing F38 KDE spin today, I see this: Delta RPMs reduced 235.2 MB to 23.8 MB (89.9%) So, it seems we do still have some cornercases when deltaRPM shows its value. But, ok, In agree that in most cases it's irrelevant this days. +1 for dropping deltarpm geraldosimiao Em ter., 21 de fev. de

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/28/23 05:06, Petr Pisar wrote: > V Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:47:03AM -, Daniel Alley napsal(a): >> I am not sure whether by "all historical updates" you are only referring to >> all updates being listed in updateinfo.xml, or all history generally >> (including old packages). > > The

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Petr Pisar wrote: > Would that affect all clients? No. updateinfo.xml can only be downloaded > by clients requesting that data. People doing "dnf upgrade" can safely > skip it. Keep in mind that updateinfo.xml is also used by GUI updaters such as dnfdragora or plasma-pk-updates to display

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

V Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:47:03AM -, Daniel Alley napsal(a): > I am not sure whether by "all historical updates" you are only referring to > all updates being listed in updateinfo.xml, or all history generally > (including old packages). The latter. > But in the latter case, note that

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

I am not sure whether by "all historical updates" you are only referring to all updates being listed in updateinfo.xml, or all history generally (including old packages). But in the latter case, note that keeping all updates massively inflates the storage requirements for maintaining a copy of

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

V Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 12:08:28PM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel napsal(a): > On 2/24/23 12:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Robert Marcano via devel > > said: > > > Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security > > > is involved? Because the RHEL

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > I would personally not miss --security, but what is really useful is the > --advisory=… flag that used to be implemented by the same plugin. (They > are now both built in in DNF.) That is invaluable to test individual > updates from updates-testing. I would consider

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 12:12:41PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 2023-02-21 12:48, Matthew Miller wrote: > > I was asked to weigh in onhttps://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > > > >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2023-02-21 12:48, Matthew Miller wrote: I was asked to weigh in onhttps://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere...

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Fri, Feb 24 2023 at 11:42:17 AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security is involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a feature to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the problem or the

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 06:03:39AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I'm not sure what a solution could be. Keep every update in updateinfo > > so dnf could tell you that there's 2 updates and 1 is security and the > > other bugfix? but then we would need to also keep

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 05:56:01AM -, Daniel Alley wrote: > Are you saying that DNF does an exact version match instead of making the > assumption that packages with version >= X contain a fix for a security bug > which the updateinfo declares to be fixed in X? > Or that the updateinfo itself

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > > > priority. Last time we talked about

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/24/23 12:35 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 2023-02-24 07:42, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security is involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a feature to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2023-02-24 07:42, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security is involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a feature to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the problem or the implementation? I don't

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/24/23 12:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Robert Marcano via devel said: Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security is involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a feature to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the problem or

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Once upon a time, Robert Marcano via devel said: > Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security > is involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a > feature to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the > problem or the implementation? Just a guess,

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/23/23 8:24 PM, Dennis Gilmore via devel wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a priority. Last time we talked

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/23/23 8:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Fri, Feb 24 2023 at 12:00:40 AM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: There are also other dangers with installing only security fixes. If a bugfix is released and packaged, and later it's discovered that the bug had security implications, then no security

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Are you saying that DNF does an exact version match instead of making the assumption that packages with version >= X contain a fix for a security bug which the updateinfo declares to be fixed in X? Or that the updateinfo itself gets purged of advisories that don't apply to the latest versions

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I'm not sure what a solution could be. Keep every update in updateinfo > so dnf could tell you that there's 2 updates and 1 is security and the > other bugfix? but then we would need to also keep those updates around > to update to. Add a repodata field "last security update

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24 2023 at 12:00:40 AM +0100, Björn Persson > wrote: >> There are also other dangers with installing only security fixes. If a >> bugfix is released and packaged, and later it's discovered that the >> bug >> had security implications, then no security update

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Should it be replaced with rsync? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > > >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/23/23 18:00, Björn Persson wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: >> Contrary-wise: Because Fedora updates only contains the latest built, >> once a build marked as a security fix is obsoleted by another build, >> there is no longer any indication that a security issue existed in any >> version,

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/23/23 12:52, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 10:33:27AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> Just FYI, we do not produce drpms for rawhide/branched at all (since >> 2017 ish). > [...] >> Its one line in bodhi pungi config: >> createrepo_deltas = False >>> If shut off, can it be turned

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Fri, Feb 24 2023 at 12:00:40 AM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: There are also other dangers with installing only security fixes. If a bugfix is released and packaged, and later it's discovered that the bug had security implications, then no security update will be made because the fix is

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Gordon Messmer wrote: > Contrary-wise: Because Fedora updates only contains the latest built, > once a build marked as a security fix is obsoleted by another build, > there is no longer any indication that a security issue existed in any > version, at which point "dnf update --security" no

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:15:42AM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 2023-02-23 10:05, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > Contrary-wise: Because Fedora updates only contains the latest built, > > once a build marked as a security fix is obsoleted by another build, > > there is no longer any indication that

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:46:03AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 22. 02. 23 v 5:38 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a): > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > I fear the only way to fix it is to get pungi to merge entire repos, and > > > I don't think thats anything that pungi wants to be on the hook for

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2023-02-23 10:05, Gordon Messmer wrote: Contrary-wise: Because Fedora updates only contains the latest built, once a build marked as a security fix is obsoleted by another build, there is no longer any indication that a security issue existed in any version, at which point "dnf update

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2023-02-22 10:48, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 05:38:23AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: I remember that in ancient times (pre Core-Extras Merge), some Fedora repository (IIRC, the old Fedora Extras) used to ship not only the latest build for each package, but the TWO

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 10:33:27AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Just FYI, we do not produce drpms for rawhide/branched at all (since > 2017 ish). [...] > Its one line in bodhi pungi config: > createrepo_deltas = False > > If shut off, can it be turned back on again (in case of Regrets)? > Just

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 10:56:53AM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > Could we do this as a two-step approach? First change the default to > > not use deltas but still allow people to opt-in to it. Then (assuming > > we can track this, which maybe we can't) see how much they're used > > before

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 01:41:43PM +0100, Luna Jernberg wrote: > Dislike -1 This kind of "vote" isn't really very helpful. Of course not everyone is going to like everything. As I said initially, it's unfortunate that we aren't in a better place here. But we're in the place we're in. If you have

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Dne 22. 02. 23 v 5:38 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a): Kevin Fenzi wrote: I fear the only way to fix it is to get pungi to merge entire repos, and I don't think thats anything that pungi wants to be on the hook for doing. But there are more things than just DeltaRPMs it could be useful for.

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:44:29PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > We could merge current repos into the newly created one from pungi, but > > it would be a vast amount of work. It would mean all repodata would need > > to be regenerated. That said, it could be done, but no one has had the > > cycles

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:49 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > It does have advantages for sure. > > Pros: > * can dnf downgrade easily. > * can choose not to upgrade something thats a big change you aren't > ready for. > > I don't know enough about RPM packaging or DNF CoW to say either way, but I

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 1:40 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > The reason it behaves this way is because koji has no concept of 'newer > version' or 'older version'. It has only when a valid build was tagged > into a tag, and pungi operates on that with 'give me the latest tagged > packages in these

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 15:56, Daniel Alley wrote: > Well, regarding the "based on something", you can hand off a list of > packages to createrepo_c with --pkglist, and avoid the need to download > files with --update + --skip-stat. Unfortunately that doesn't help you > with the package file

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:12:01PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > So, does that mean that every time a compose is performed pungi > downloads all RPMs tagged with a specific tag in a directory and then it > operates on those to create repository metadata? Or it just downloads > the rpms

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:43:20PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > It's not "broken" just because it doesn't do what you would like it to > > do. Please can we not disparage other peoples work? > > > > The reason it behaves this way is because koji has no concept of 'newer > > version' or

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Well, regarding the "based on something", you can hand off a list of packages to createrepo_c with --pkglist, and avoid the need to download files with --update + --skip-stat. Unfortunately that doesn't help you with the package file management. In a vacuum --baseurl would help here because

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 10:40 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller > > wrote: > > > > > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > > > priority. Last time we talked

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Il 22/02/23 19:46, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:37:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> It's also been a long time since I've seen any benefit. >> >> Can anyone summarise quickly why delta RPMs don't work? It seems like >> they "obviously" should be possible, because

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:51:54PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said: > > Pros: > > * can dnf downgrade easily. > > This assumes the N-1 release is working though, which is not always > valid when there's an issue (sometimes release N doesn't work, so > there's

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said: > Pros: > * can dnf downgrade easily. This assumes the N-1 release is working though, which is not always valid when there's an issue (sometimes release N doesn't work, so there's release N+1 that still has a problem, but then release N-1 would be gone). >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 05:38:23AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I fear the only way to fix it is to get pungi to merge entire repos, and > > I don't think thats anything that pungi wants to be on the hook for > > doing. > > But there are more things than just

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:37:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It's also been a long time since I've seen any benefit. > > Can anyone summarise quickly why delta RPMs don't work? It seems like > they "obviously" should be possible, because there must be a lot of > commonality in the

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > > > >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:13:26PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 04:44:31PM -0500, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > So do we kill it for: > > > > F39/F40 and beyond? > > F38 and beyond? > > X-date and all releases? > > My normal response would be... well, I missed the F38

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > Please don't try to equate those things to DeltaRPMs, unless you're > trying to equate their general uselessness. OSTree and Neal, hyperbole like "general uselessness" is not appropriate in talking about other people's work. In any

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/22/23 10:39, Ben Cotton wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> What we're doing now — as has been the case for several years, already noted >> in the previous discussion — has very little end-user value. Also as noted >> in that thread (as in the ticket)...

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

I agree with the idea that Ben suggested of not enabling deltas by default and giving users the option until a certain time where it can be phased out fully. I remember in my personal experience that delta slowed down update durations. On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, 15:40 Ben Cotton, wrote: > On Tue,

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > What we're doing now — as has been the case for several years, already noted > in the previous discussion — has very little end-user value. Also as noted > in that thread (as in the ticket)... that's unfortunate, because it did > bring

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Dislike -1 On 2/22/23, Steve Cossette wrote: > Yeah I'd say +1 from here too. Was just wondering about this yesterday. > > Le mer. 22 févr. 2023, 05 h 52, Kamil Paral a écrit : > >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:48 PM Matthew Miller >> wrote: >> >>> But, I think it's time to move on. We have

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Yeah I'd say +1 from here too. Was just wondering about this yesterday. Le mer. 22 févr. 2023, 05 h 52, Kamil Paral a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > >> But, I think it's time to move on. We have ostree and various >> container-delta approaches. We should

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:37 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > It's also been a long time since I've seen any benefit. > > Can anyone summarise quickly why delta RPMs don't work? It seems like > they "obviously" should be possible, because there must be a lot of > commonality in the content of

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > But, I think it's time to move on. We have ostree and various > container-delta approaches. We should focus on those — and give DeltaRPMs a > sad, fond farewell. > +1 from me. It will speed up the compose, and I haven't seen a positive

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 8:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > What we're doing now — as has been the case for several years, already noted > in the previous discussion — has very little end-user value. While occasionally I have seen a small decrease in the size of the files transferred (which

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

It's also been a long time since I've seen any benefit. Can anyone summarise quickly why delta RPMs don't work? It seems like they "obviously" should be possible, because there must be a lot of commonality in the content of adjacent RPM versions ... Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I fear the only way to fix it is to get pungi to merge entire repos, and > I don't think thats anything that pungi wants to be on the hook for > doing. But there are more things than just DeltaRPMs it could be useful for. E.g., I remember that in ancient times (pre

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/21/23 17:13, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 04:44:31PM -0500, Stephen Smoogen wrote: >> So do we kill it for: >> >> F39/F40 and beyond? >> F38 and beyond? >> X-date and all releases? > > My normal response would be... well, I missed the F38 change deadline by a > wide

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/21/23 16:44, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 15:48, Matthew Miller > wrote: > >> I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a >> priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... >> >> >>

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 04:44:31PM -0500, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > So do we kill it for: > > F39/F40 and beyond? > F38 and beyond? > X-date and all releases? My normal response would be... well, I missed the F38 change deadline by a wide margin, so F39+. But, I think we could stop producing

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:48:06PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 15:48, Matthew Miller wrote: > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > > >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Got it.  Leslie Satenstein On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 03:48:23 p.m. EST, Matthew Miller wrote: I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere...

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/21/23 15:53, Fabio Valentini wrote: It's been a long, long, time since any dnf transaction I ran printed positive news about deltarpms ... most of the time there either aren't any, or using them actually increased data download. A recent transaction went so poorly that it prompted me to

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > >

Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JYKVELSBJQMEK6KEFXG354ZDZDDX4C5G/#RLEUYSWOUVUS53YAP7WQQNN7HNEBIC4E ...