Jan Zelený writes:
On 13. 3. 2014 at 13:41:48, Tethys wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Mark Haney <mhaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So, let me get this straight, DNF doesn't check the (online?) repo > > metadata when I call 'sudo dnf update'? That's how I'm reading this. > > > > If that's true, why the devil not? > > At a guess, for marketing reasons. People see apt as being quicker > than yum, and in a large part that's because it doesn't update > metadata where yum does, so people are comparing two different things. > I believe that not checking metadata is retarded and I don't think > we're right in moving to the same architecture. But it wouldn't > surprise me if that's the rationale. And you are absolutely correct. The metadata are quite large and downloading them every single time is time consuming. There is usually no harm in getting the updates a few days later and if you really want to get the very latest updates, you still have options how to achieve that - either change the time period for how long the MD should be cached or run dnf clean * before you run the update.
And that's exactly how it's going to end up playing out, I'll bet anything on this. Most people will simply clear the cache explicitly, before they run dnf. Or, they'll put it in a crontab to run every night.
Making technical decisions for admittingly marketing reasons is, like someone else put it, retarded.
But nobody should be surprised. I'm not. Wouldn't be the first major technical decision that Fedora has made for purely retarded reasons. People's exhibit A: systemd.
Attachment:
pgpfLdGLiiMCL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
