On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 22:36 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Adam Williamson writes:
> All dnf's 'nice features' aren't really there for a system update,
Well what are they there for, then?
Querying the package database and installing new packages. A system
update, on the other hand, is...it's not *configurable*, really. You
say 'update my system, please!' and you get an updated system. That's
kind of it. I'm just struggling to think which of the 'features and
functionality' of dnf Gerald was talking about in the context of doing
a system update. I think the most I'd ever use would be --enablerepo /
--disablerepo , and --nogpgcheck (and hopefully we'll never need that
one again anyway, now).
But I was talking to Gerald, not you. I'm not really sure why you keep
jumping in and prolonging this thread - you apparently didn't hit the
bug, and you certainly know enough about the tech to drive your own
personal updates however you choose. What exactly is your goal here?
Hmmm… Right now, running "pkcon get-updates" claims
"There are no
available at this time.", meanwhile "dnf upgrade" shows 68 packages
be updated. "pkcon refresh" doesn't change anything.
I don't actually have much experience of driving it through pkcon, I've
only ever used the GNOME Software route, where the refresh button more
or less seems to do what it claims. I don't use the offline updates
stuff on my own servers, I'm okay with just letting dnf-automatic do
them. My personal fuzzy evaluation is that the you get about 90% of the
safety gain going from 'run in a terminal in X' to 'run in a VT',
offline updates get you another 10%, and I'm okay with that tradeoff
for my machines because they're just not terribly important. If I was
running a gajillion dollar server farm I'd probably have different
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora