- Original Message -
From: Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 2:01:27 PM
Subject: Re: More dnf annoyance
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:51:47 + (UTC), Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
dnf --refresh is more like dnf
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:51:47 + (UTC), Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
dnf --refresh is more like dnf clean expire-cache, which sometimes
gives additional updates to plain dnf upgrade, but there still seems
some caching involved that keeps it from providing all updates available.
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
dnf --refresh is more like dnf clean expire-cache, which sometimes
gives additional updates to plain dnf upgrade, but there still seems
some caching involved that keeps it from providing all updates available.
Doubtful.
dnf update --refresh here
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:21:49 + (UTC), Andreas M. Kirchwitz wrote:
dnf --refresh is more like dnf clean expire-cache, which sometimes
gives additional updates to plain dnf upgrade, but there still seems
some caching involved that keeps it from providing all updates available.
Doubtful.
Heinz Diehl htd...@fritha.org wrote:
F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new
packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade
shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*.
Yes, you are correct. Several people have verified this behavior,
they
Hi,
F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new
packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade
shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*.
Dnf hasn't been working properly since F22, while I had not a single
problem with yum ever. Still I have to
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 13:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/11/2015 12:51 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some
new
packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh
On 08/11/2015 12:51 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new
packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade
shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*.
So
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:50:02 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Last Sunday, I've had a case, where I resorted to
rm -rf /var/cache/dnf
because neither dnf clean all nor dnf --refresh seems to have worked.
No matter what I did dnf seems have refetched the same outdated mirror
presenting me the
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new
packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade
shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*.
So two update commands at different times give different
On 08/11/2015 12:16 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:35:04 +0200
Heinz Diehl wrote:
F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new
packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade
shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*.
Last Sunday,
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:35:04 +0200
Heinz Diehl wrote:
F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some new
packets. Then dnf clean all followed by dnf --refresh upgrade
shows the same packets to be updated, and *some more*.
I don't think that's new with dnf. I've seen similar
On 11.08.2015, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
So two update commands at different times give different results?
If two update commands issued directly after another qualify as at
different times, then yes. In fact, there was not more than max. one
minute between the two.
Dnf hasn't been working
On 11.08.2015, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yet two completely separate contacts with Fedora's metalink server.
Trouble-shooting these kinds of problems would need to include a closer
look at what mirrors you are assigned to in both cases.
Ok, I see. So what command should I use to keep my
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:35:56PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
Yet two completely separate contacts with Fedora's metalink server.
Trouble-shooting these kinds of problems would need to include a closer
look at what mirrors you are assigned to in both cases.
Ok, I see. So what command should
On 08/11/2015 01:32 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 13:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/11/2015 12:51 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
F22, in short: first running dnf --refresh upgrade shows some
new
packets. Then
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:41:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 11.08.2015, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
So two update commands at different times give different results?
If two update commands issued directly after another qualify as at
different times, then yes. In fact, there was not more
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 15:41 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 11.08.2015, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
So two update commands at different times give different results?
If two update commands issued directly after another qualify as at
different times, then yes. In fact, there was not more than
On 08/11/2015 04:53 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:35:56PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
Yet two completely separate contacts with Fedora's metalink server.
Trouble-shooting these kinds of problems would need to include a closer
look at what mirrors you are assigned to in both
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 15:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/11/2015 01:32 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 13:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/11/2015 12:51 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:35 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
F22, in
20 matches
Mail list logo
