On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:52:01 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> At some point, it might be worth doing cost/benefit analysis on
> continuing down our existing mirroring strategy and designing for the
> limits of that vs. the application of some sponsor funds towards the
> use of more standard CDN serv
Dne 3.8.2015 v 17:45 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:29:30 +0200
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> This is actually not true.
> Well, as I noted in my reply, I wasn't actually sure what was being
> proposed here.
>
>> The repodata should contain just the latest
>> version, but if I have s
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
> So, you are proposing we do things exactly as we are now, but also keep
> around all previous copies of the packages in the repos (but not in the
> repodata)?
>
> I'm not sure if that setup would work with dnf. I think it requires
> whatever mirror(s) it use
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:29:30 +0200
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> This is actually not true.
Well, as I noted in my reply, I wasn't actually sure what was being
proposed here.
> The repodata should contain just the latest
> version, but if I have slightly older version of metadata already
> downloaded,
Dne 2.8.2015 v 18:15 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:33:39 -0400
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Richard Hughes
>> wrote:
>>> On 31 July 2015 at 17:27, Radek Holy wrote:
One can say that the mirrors should keep the older versions
>>> I would c
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 05:53:15 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * There could be some nasty issues with keeping known
> > vulnerable/broken packages around. ie, foo-1.0 has a severe
> > security bug, foo-1.1 fixes it. You now just need to trick someone
> > into downgrading or dire
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * There could be some nasty issues with keeping known vulnerable/broken
> packages around. ie, foo-1.0 has a severe security bug, foo-1.1 fixes
> it. You now just need to trick someone into downgrading or directly
> installing foo-1.0 (which is in normal repos and signed
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:33:39 -0400
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Richard Hughes
> wrote:
> > On 31 July 2015 at 17:27, Radek Holy wrote:
> >> One can say that the mirrors should keep the older versions
> >
> > I would completely agree. As we can't rely that packages
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 31 July 2015 at 17:27, Radek Holy wrote:
>> One can say that the mirrors should keep the older versions
>
> I would completely agree. As we can't rely that packages referenced in
> metadata just one day old still being on the mirrors mea
On 31 July 2015 at 17:27, Radek Holy wrote:
> One can say that the mirrors should keep the older versions
I would completely agree. As we can't rely that packages referenced in
metadata just one day old still being on the mirrors means that
PackageKit has to download hundreds of megabytes month
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:46:16AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 31.07.2015 um 05:47 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> >On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>Radek Holy wrote:
> >>>Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
> >>>f
- Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Kofler"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:56:48 AM
> Subject: Re: gross DNF bandwidth inefficiency if filesystem space limited
>
> Radek Holy wrote:
> > Known, https://bugzilla.
Am 31.07.2015 um 10:46 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 31.07.2015 um 05:47 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Radek Holy wrote:
Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
fixed in dnf-1.0.2.
I still don't
Am 31.07.2015 um 05:47 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Radek Holy wrote:
Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
fixed in dnf-1.0.2.
I still don't understand why we don't just enable keepcache b
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Radek Holy wrote:
> > Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
> > fixed in dnf-1.0.2.
>
> I still don't understand why we don't just enable keepcache by default. Even
> after a successful update/install,
Radek Holy wrote:
> Known, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220074. Should be
> fixed in dnf-1.0.2.
I still don't understand why we don't just enable keepcache by default. Even
after a successful update/install, deleting the cached packages is a major
data loss because it prevents do
- Original Message -
> From: "Felix Miata"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:21:19 AM
> Subject: gross DNF bandwidth inefficiency if filesystem space limited
>
> # dnf upgrade
> (dnf nearly exhausts freespace downloading
Johnny Robeson composed on 2015-07-30 03:25 (UTC-0400):
> On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 03:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>> # dnf upgrade
>> (dnf nearly exhausts freespace downloading all packages before installing
>> any packages)
>> dnf then reports package xxx needs ##MB on / filesystem and exits with
On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 03:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> # dnf upgrade
> (dnf nearly exhausts freespace downloading all packages before
> installing any
> packages)
> dnf then reports package xxx needs ##MB on / filesystem and exits
> without
> doing any installing
> dnf all deletes downloaded pac
# dnf upgrade
(dnf nearly exhausts freespace downloading all packages before installing any
packages)
dnf then reports package xxx needs ##MB on / filesystem and exits without
doing any installing
dnf all deletes downloaded packages
# dnf upgrade (package subset, e.g. dnf* rpm* a* b* c* d* e* f* x*
20 matches
Mail list logo
