On 9.4.2015 20:23, Radek Holy wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Przemek Klosowski" <przemek.klosowski@xxxxxxxx> >> To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 5:13:49 PM >> Subject: Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum > >> On 04/09/2015 11:05 AM, Michal Luscon wrote: > >>> On 04/09/2015 05:01 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: >> > >>>> Using metadata from Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015 >>> >> > >>> ^^^ the key part of DNF output >> > >> Well, OK, but when I just re-run 'dnf update' it updates firefox now: > >>> Using metadata from Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015 >> >>> ^^^ same timestamp as before, but different result >> >>> ... >> >>> Dependencies resolved. >> >>> ... >> >>> firefox x86_64 37.0.1-1.fc21 updates 69 M >> > >> This is a definition of craziness: you do the same thing twice and expect a >> different return. In the end, I can't say that it doesn't work but I have an >> uneasy feeling that I do not understand how an essential part of my system >> works. > > The reason is that even if metadata of the "updates" repository have been refreshed, there is probably another repository with matadata from Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015 (it has probably longer expiration period). So, yes, I agree that this is confusing. > > Do you have a better idea than printing the timestamp for each repository? Maybe it could print oldest + newest timestamp, possibly with repo names? I mean something like: "Metadata: Oldest repo fedora-release (Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015, 4 days old), newest repo fedora-updates-testing (Fri Apr 10 00:00:00 2015, 10 minutes old)." or something like that. -- Petr Spacek @ Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
