On 14. 1. 2014 at 23:21:15, Peter Oliver wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 01/13/2014 09:57 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:53:53 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/13/2014 08:56 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
to be certain you can do
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 01/13/2014 09:57 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:53:53 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/13/2014 08:56 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
to be certain you can do dnf(yum) --enablerepo=* clean all
if your intention is truly
If you continue reading the thread you'll see what happened (short story:
too late fo rme)
--alec
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:43:13 +0100
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, this is not, and have never
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:36:38 +0100
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
If you continue reading the thread you'll see what happened (short
story: too late fo rme)
--alec
Refreshing my email would have helped, too early for me :(
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:06:30 -0500
Garry T. Williams gtwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
sudo dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing clean expire-cache
sudo dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing upgrade kernel\*
You can also after some research
modify the dnf-makecache.service file
to change the
On 01/13/2014 08:56 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
to be certain you can do dnf(yum) --enablerepo=* clean all
if your intention is truly to remove all cache.
Not true if you ever used --releasever option.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
--
On 01/13/2014 07:32 AM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
Let leave yum as is, but let try to redefine this behavior for dnf:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052020
If you want this change please vote for this bug (by adding yourself to CC of
that bug). Otherwise it will stay as
CLOSED
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:53:53 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/13/2014 08:56 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
to be certain you can do dnf(yum) --enablerepo=* clean all
if your intention is truly to remove all cache.
Not true if you ever used --releasever option.
dnf
On 13/01/14 08:45, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:06:30 -0500
Garry T. Williams gtwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
sudo dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing clean expire-cache
sudo dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing upgrade kernel\*
You can also after some research
modify the
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:33:09 +
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
the expire_metadata setting still applies,
Where is this setting?
besides metadata expire in *.repos.
I couldn't find in on the wiki
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:51:27 +
Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
Where is this setting?
besides metadata expire in *.repos.
I couldn't find in on the wiki
Duh! man 8 dnf.conf,
so behaviour can be changed without running
dnf clean * dnf update
for those that may want it,
by adding
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:33:09 +
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
You can also after some research
modify the dnf-makecache.service file
to change the frequency of makecache.
I don't think that will help as that service simply controls when it
considers updating - the
Am 13.01.2014 09:57, schrieb Frank Murphy:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:53:53 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/13/2014 08:56 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
to be certain you can do dnf(yum) --enablerepo=* clean all
if your intention is truly to remove all cache.
Not true if you ever
On 01/13/2014 09:57 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:53:53 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/13/2014 08:56 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
to be certain you can do dnf(yum) --enablerepo=* clean all
if your intention is truly to remove all cache.
Not true if you
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:38:39 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
No. This command is accepted (to my surprise). But it delete nothing.
And just create new directory sturcture in '/var/cache/yum/x86_64/*'.
That does suck then
if someone with more that F20 cache needs to clean.
as
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 08:45 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:06:30 -0500
Garry T. Williams gtwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
sudo dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing clean expire-cache
sudo dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing upgrade kernel\*
You can also after some
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:16:52 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
You can also after some research
modify the dnf-makecache.service file
to change the frequency of makecache.
It's a lot cleaner to just define a metadata expiry time in the
repository config file.
On 1-9-14 15:43:50 Ales Kozumplik wrote:
New DNF release is out. See the blog [1], the release notes [2] and
the F20 update [3]. Rawhide build went smooth this time too!
I see this using 0.4.11. What am I doing wrong?
garry@vfr$ sudo dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update kernel\*
[sudo]
On 1-12-14 11:39:35 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Garry T. Williams wrote:
On 1-9-14 15:43:50 Ales Kozumplik wrote:
New DNF release is out. See the blog [1], the release notes [2] and
the F20 update [3]. Rawhide build went smooth this time too!
I see this
On 1-12-14 18:18:00 M A Young wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014, Garry T. Williams wrote:
On 1-9-14 15:43:50 Ales Kozumplik wrote:
New DNF release is out. See the blog [1], the release notes [2] and
the F20 update [3]. Rawhide build went smooth this time too!
I see this using 0.4.11. What am
On 12 January 2014 21:06, Garry T. Williams gtwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1-12-14 18:18:00 M A Young wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014, Garry T. Williams wrote:
On 1-9-14 15:43:50 Ales Kozumplik wrote:
New DNF release is out. See the blog [1], the release notes [2] and
the F20 update [3].
On 1-12-14 11:30:31 you wrote:
On 1-9-14 15:43:50 Ales Kozumplik wrote:
New DNF release is out. See the blog [1], the release notes [2] and
the F20 update [3]. Rawhide build went smooth this time too!
I see this using 0.4.11. What am I doing wrong?
[snip]
garry@vfr$ sudo dnf clean all
On 1-12-14 20:27:26 Reindl Harald wrote:
dnf clean all without dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing clean all
does exactly *nothing* in case of updates-testing, the same for
YUM simply because folders of non-enabled repos are not relevant for
any operation
Yeah, I feel pretty stupid now.
--
Am 12.01.2014 21:38, schrieb Garry T. Williams:
On 1-12-14 20:27:26 Reindl Harald wrote:
dnf clean all without dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing clean all
does exactly *nothing* in case of updates-testing, the same for
YUM simply because folders of non-enabled repos are not relevant for
any
On 01/12/2014 08:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
dnf clean all without dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing clean all does
exactly*nothing* in case of updates-testing, the same for YUM simply
because folders of non-enabled repos are not relevant for any operation
And is this correct behavior? (and
Am 12.01.2014 22:42, schrieb Miroslav Suchy:
On 01/12/2014 08:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
dnf clean all without dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing clean all does
exactly *nothing* in case of updates-testing, the same for YUM simply
because folders of non-enabled repos are not relevant for any
I have come to understand that for yum, commands like clean only applies to
the actual buildroot. So without a -r argument, the cleaning is done on the
default root, whatever this might be(?).
Actually, there is probably nothing wrong with this - it works fine when
using the -r option. Problems
from a developers point of view the current behavior is clear and perfect
what is not enabled is handeled as it would not exist
means:
repos with enabled=0 are completly ignored until --enablrepo with no
but and if - clear and straight logical decision
from a users point of view all has a
Well, IMHO the docs are actually quite clear on that 'all' refers to all
metadata rather than all repositories.
That said, perhaps enough people has been confused by this to make some
kind of improvement motivated.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
Well, IMHO the docs are actually quite clear on that 'all' refers to all
metadata rather than all repositories.
That said, perhaps enough people has been confused by this to make some kind
of improvement motivated.
I am pretty sure if you
Am 13.01.2014 00:17, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
Well, IMHO the docs are actually quite clear on that 'all' refers to all
metadata rather than all repositories.
That said, perhaps enough people has been confused by this to make some kind
of
First of all, this is not, and have never been a question of disabled
repos. Or should not have. yum clean all refers to cleaning all metadata,
not all repos. It only operates on one single repo, be it implicit (the
default link) or an explicit -r option.
This is what confuses. I know: been
Am 13.01.2014 00:43, schrieb Alec Leamas:
First of all, this is not, and have never been a question of disabled repos.
Or should not have. yum clean all
refers to cleaning all metadata, not all repos. It only operates on one
single repo, be it implicit (the default
link) or an explicit -r
Yes, sorry, forget what I wrote. I messed up mock with yum, that's why.
It's too late for me to chime in here. Sorry for the noise.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 13.01.2014 00:43, schrieb Alec Leamas:
First of all, this is not, and have
On 12 January 2014 21:27, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 12.01.2014 20:24, schrieb Ahmad Samir:
On 12 January 2014 21:06, Garry T. Williams gtwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1-12-14 18:18:00 M A Young wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014, Garry T. Williams wrote:
On 1-9-14 15:43:50 Ales
On 01/12/2014 11:23 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
Well, IMHO the docs are actually quite clear on that 'all' refers to all
metadata rather than all repositories.
That said, perhaps enough people has been confused by this to make some
kind of improvement motivated.
Let leave yum as is, but let try to
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:51:22 +0200
Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote:
Right, I missed that bit.
to be certain you can do dnf(yum) --enablerepo=* clean all
if your intention is truly to remove all cache.
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:43:13 +0100
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, this is not, and have never been a question of disabled
repos. Or should not have. yum clean all refers to cleaning all
metadata, not all repos. It only operates on one single repo, be it
implicit (the
38 matches
Mail list logo
