On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote: > Suvayu Ali wrote: > >That said, I sometimes do not understand what's the harm in getting > >updates few hours later. dnf already tells you how old the metadata is > >when it starts, you can choose to get the latest metadata if it is too > >old. So what's the big deal? > > I certainly get the impression that dnf tells me about updates less > frequently than yum did. It also seems to pull in metadata less > frequently. Everyone seems to picked on this post for me, whereas missing on my follow-up, with actual numbers: <http://mid.gmane.org/20150722160112.GC1727@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > In fedora-updates.repo I have: metadata_expire=6h. I also have the > dnf-makecache.timer 'masked'. In the above post, I say I do not change any of the defaults metadata related configs. From what people are posting, I have the feeling dnf relies a lot on _continuous_ network connectivity (which is true in my case). If that is true, if either the connection at the users end is intermittent, or the mirrors are unreliable, the cache probably ends up being stale more often. Instead of bashing and complaining, I think trying to analyse why it works for me (and maybe a few others who are quiet), and not for the other participants in this thread, it would be a lot more helpful to the devs. I can't help here since it actually works for me beautifully. Users who see a problem are the ones in a position to contribute an effective bug report. My 2¢, cheers, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free. -- 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
