<html><body><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Przemek Klosowski" <przemek.klosowski@nist.gov><br><b>To: </b>devel@lists.fedoraproject.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, April 9, 2015 5:13:49 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum<br><div><br></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/09/2015 11:05 AM, Michal Luscon
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5526953F.1000900@redhat.com">On
04/09/2015 05:01 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
<br>
<blockquote>Using metadata from Fri Apr 3 03:24:08
2015
<br>
</blockquote>
^^^ the key part of DNF output
<br>
</blockquote>
Well, OK, but when I just re-run 'dnf update' it updates firefox
now:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Using metadata from Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015 <br>
^^^ same timestamp as before, but
different result<br>
...<br>
Dependencies resolved.<br>
...<br>
firefox x86_64 37.0.1-1.fc21
updates 69 M<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Do you have a better idea than printing the timestamp for each repository?<br></div><div>-- <br></div><div><span name="x"></span>Radek Holý<br>Associate Software Engineer<br>Software Management Team<br>Red Hat Czech<span name="x"></span><br></div></div></body></html>