I installed the F23 beta last week when it first came out. There were 483MB of updates on 23rd September. I didn't use it again until today. I was expecting another bumper load of updates, GNOME 3.18 in particular.
However, 'dnf update' and 'dnf --best update' both report there's nothing to do.
rpm tells me I have gnome-shell 3.17.92-1. 'dnf update gnome-shell' wants to update gnome-shell and mutter to 3.18.0-1. 'dnf repolist -v' tells me I have the following metadata:
updates-testing: using metadata from Tue Sep 29 06:54:57 2015. fedora: using metadata from Mon Sep 28 09:56:23 2015. updates: using metadata from Thu Jul 16 17:29:26 2015.
Once again dnf leaves me baffled.
Ron
On Ter, 2015-09-29 at 11:51 +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
I installed the F23 beta last week when it first came out. There were 483MB of updates on 23rd September. I didn't use it again until today. I was expecting another bumper load of updates, GNOME 3.18 in particular.
However, 'dnf update' and 'dnf --best update' both report there's nothing to do.
For all dnf problems, we got yum-deprecated to work around !
rpm tells me I have gnome-shell 3.17.92-1. 'dnf update gnome-shell' wants to update gnome-shell and mutter to 3.18.0-1. 'dnf repolist -v' tells me I have the following metadata:
updates-testing: using metadata from Tue Sep 29 06:54:57 2015. fedora: using metadata from Mon Sep 28 09:56:23 2015. updates: using metadata from Thu Jul 16 17:29:26 2015.
Once again dnf leaves me baffled.
Ron
Hi,
I encountered probably the same problem with dnf-1.1.2-2, command 'dnf update --refresh' reported nothing to do, but 'yum-deprecated update' wanted to download the updates.
It seems that dnf-1.1.2-2 from updates-testing was broken, it didn't check the repos properly. I downgraded the dnf (and all dependencies) with yum-deprecated to dnf-1.1.1-2 and it works now.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ron Yorston rmy@frippery.org wrote:
I installed the F23 beta last week when it first came out. There were 483MB of updates on 23rd September. I didn't use it again until today. I was expecting another bumper load of updates, GNOME 3.18 in particular.
However, 'dnf update' and 'dnf --best update' both report there's nothing to do.
rpm tells me I have gnome-shell 3.17.92-1. 'dnf update gnome-shell' wants to update gnome-shell and mutter to 3.18.0-1. 'dnf repolist -v' tells me I have the following metadata:
updates-testing: using metadata from Tue Sep 29 06:54:57 2015. fedora: using metadata from Mon Sep 28 09:56:23 2015. updates: using metadata from Thu Jul 16 17:29:26 2015.
Once again dnf leaves me baffled.
Ron
test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Lukas Brabec wrote:
It seems that dnf-1.1.2-2 from updates-testing was broken, it didn't check the repos properly. I downgraded the dnf (and all dependencies) with yum-deprecated to dnf-1.1.1-2 and it works now.
Thanks for the hint. Downgrading dnf from 1.1.2-2 to 1.1.1-2 resulted in 'dnf update' finding 214MB of updates, which is more like what I was expecting. I see that dnf-1.1.2-2 wasn't among them.
I really don't much like dnf: its default behaviour seems off compared to yum and I have less trust in it than I did yum.
Ron
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 15:04 +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
Thanks for the hint. Downgrading dnf from 1.1.2-2 to 1.1.1-2 resulted in 'dnf update' finding 214MB of updates, which is more like what I was expecting. I see that dnf-1.1.2-2 wasn't among them.
Probably a faulty update which is why it was unpushed - happens from time to time if you're using updates-testing.
Dne 29.9.2015 v 16:04 Ron Yorston napsal(a):
Lukas Brabec wrote:
It seems that dnf-1.1.2-2 from updates-testing was broken, it didn't check the repos properly. I downgraded the dnf (and all dependencies) with yum-deprecated to dnf-1.1.1-2 and it works now.
Thanks for the hint. Downgrading dnf from 1.1.2-2 to 1.1.1-2 resulted in 'dnf update' finding 214MB of updates, which is more like what I was expecting. I see that dnf-1.1.2-2 wasn't among them.
I really don't much like dnf: its default behaviour seems off compared to yum and I have less trust in it than I did yum.
IMHO primary problem I can see here with dnf is - it's pushed to rawhide with no testing by it's developers.
It's the core problem - some developers thinks/believe that rawhide is just collection of garbage that none is using - but they are quite wrong on this.
PEOPLE ARE USING IT - so please avoid pushing random trash to rawhide repo....
thanks
Zdenek
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 16:57 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
IMHO primary problem I can see here with dnf is - it's pushed to rawhide with no testing by it's developers.
It has a fairly large test suite, in fact. It just didn't catch this issue.
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 15:04 +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
Lukas Brabec wrote:
It seems that dnf-1.1.2-2 from updates-testing was broken, it didn't check the repos properly. I downgraded the dnf (and all dependencies) with yum-deprecated to dnf-1.1.1-2 and it works now.
Thanks for the hint. Downgrading dnf from 1.1.2-2 to 1.1.1-2 resulted in 'dnf update' finding 214MB of updates, which is more like what I was expecting. I see that dnf-1.1.2-2 wasn't among them.
I really don't much like dnf: its default behaviour seems off compared to yum and I have less trust in it than I did yum.
It was just a bug, in a pre-release piece of software. We *do* advise (and have always advised) that people running pre-releases follow this list or some other form of news source; this one was widely discussed here, on other lists, on the Planet, even on G+.
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 15:04 +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
I really don't much like dnf: its default behaviour seems off compared to yum and I have less trust in it than I did yum.
It was just a bug, in a pre-release piece of software.
My opinion of dnf is not based solely on this one bug.
Ron
The tracker bug of this issue is at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265336
You don't need to yield to yum, dnf still works.