3.3 gigs in /var/cache/PackageKit/24/metadata after dnf system-upgrade

[Schlaegel]

I followed the instructions in the Fedora 25 Installation Guide and the DNF
system upgrade document, using `sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh
--releasever=25` and then the `sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot` command.

I then worked through an issue with the stock repositories and packages
causing my Nvidia graphics to lock up, and I eventually had a working
system.

After a month of updates, I started seeing warnings about the size of the
var partition. Somehow /var/cache/PackageKit/24/metadata is still there and
very large. I tried `sudo pkcon refresh force -c -1` but I still have 3.3
gigs in PackageKit's Fedora 24 directory.

What would be a good course of action?
I'm reluctant to use root to just delete the files, assuming that they are
in some PackageKit database somewhere.
Is there another step that should be added to the DNF system upgrade
document to have this directory cleaned?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Mon, 2016-12-26 at 20:58 +0000, Schlaegel wrote:
>  I followed the instructions in the Fedora 25 Installation Guide and
> the DNF
>  system upgrade document, using `sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh
>  --releasever=25` and then the `sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot` command.
>  
>  I then worked through an issue with the stock repositories and packages
>  causing my Nvidia graphics to lock up, and I eventually had a working
>  system.
>  
>  After a month of updates, I started seeing warnings about the size of the
>  var partition. Somehow /var/cache/PackageKit/24/metadata is still there and
>  very large. I tried `sudo pkcon refresh force -c -1` but I still have 3.3
>  gigs in PackageKit's Fedora 24 directory.
>  
>  What would be a good course of action?
>  I'm reluctant to use root to just delete the files, assuming that they are
>  in some PackageKit database somewhere.
>  Is there another step that should be added to the DNF system upgrade
>  document to have this directory cleaned? 
dnf clean packages

For other options: 'man dnf' and look under 'clean'.

poc

[Samuel Sieb]

On 12/26/2016 04:21 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>  On Mon, 2016-12-26 at 20:58 +0000, Schlaegel wrote:
> > After a month of updates, I started seeing warnings about the size of the
> > var partition. Somehow /var/cache/PackageKit/24/metadata is still there and
> > very large. I tried `sudo pkcon refresh force -c -1` but I still have 3.3
> > gigs in PackageKit's Fedora 24 directory.
> >
> > What would be a good course of action?
> > I'm reluctant to use root to just delete the files, assuming that they are
> > in some PackageKit database somewhere.
> > Is there another step that should be added to the DNF system upgrade
> > document to have this directory cleaned?
>
>  dnf clean packages
>
>  For other options: 'man dnf' and look under 'clean'.
>  
That won't have any effect on the packagekit cache.  Packagekit doesn't 
clean up old packages that it has downloaded but not installed.

Deleting /var/cache/PackageKit will have no bad effect other than 
packagekit will have to download the repo metadata again.

[Dario Lesca]

Il giorno lun, 26/12/2016 alle 20.58 +0000, Schlaegel ha scritto:
>  What would be a good course of action? 
After install a new Fedora 24, now 25, I do this step.

sudo systemctl mask dnf-makecache dnf-makecache.timer packagekit
packagekit-offline-update 
sudo systemctl stop dnf-makecache dnf-makecache.timer packagekit
packagekit-offline-update 


rm -rf /var/cache/PackageKit/*


And all still work.

-- 
Dario Lesca
(inviato dal mio Linux Fedora 24 Workstation)

[Dario Lesca]

Il giorno mar, 27/12/2016 alle 14.32 +0100, Dario Lesca ha scritto:
>  Il giorno lun, 26/12/2016 alle 20.58 +0000, Schlaegel ha scritto:
>  > What would be a good course of action?
>  
>  After install a new Fedora 24, now 25, I do this step.
>  
>  sudo systemctl mask dnf-makecache dnf-makecache.timer packagekit
>  packagekit-offline-update 
>  sudo systemctl stop dnf-makecache dnf-makecache.timer packagekit
>  packagekit-offline-update 
>  
>  
>  rm -rf /var/cache/PackageKit/*
>  
>  
>  
>  And all still work. 
Another way to avoid that PackageKit download tons of package, which it
will never use and never remove, is:

sudo dnf  remove PackageKit
rm -rf /var/cache/PackageKit/*

This remove also gnome-software, then, if you want a graphical software
installer you can:

sudo dnf install yumex-dnf

bye

-- 
Dario Lesca
(inviato dal mio Linux Fedora 24 Workstation)

[Chris Murphy]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Dario Lesca <d.lesca(a)solinos.it&gt; wrote:

>  Il giorno mar, 27/12/2016 alle 14.32 +0100, Dario Lesca ha scritto:
>
>  Il giorno lun, 26/12/2016 alle 20.58 +0000, Schlaegel ha scritto:
>
>
>  What would be a good course of action?
>
>
>  After install a new Fedora 24, now 25, I do this step.
>
>  sudo systemctl mask dnf-makecache dnf-makecache.timer packagekit
>  packagekit-offline-update
>  sudo systemctl stop dnf-makecache dnf-makecache.timer packagekit
>  packagekit-offline-update
>
>  rm -rf /var/cache/PackageKit/*
>
>  And all still work.
>
>
>  Another way to avoid that PackageKit download tons of package, which it
>  will never use and never remove, is:
>
>  sudo dnf remove PackageKit
>  rm -rf /var/cache/PackageKit/*
>
>  This remove also gnome-software, then, if you want a graphical software
>  installer you can:
>
>  sudo dnf install yumex-dnf
>
>  
This is bad advice. Breaking gnome-software just to avoid updates from
being downloaded is the wrong hammer. Instead use,

[chris@f25h ~]$ gsettings set org.gnome.software download-updates false



-- 
Chris Murphy

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 08:58:46PM +0000, Schlaegel wrote:
>  What would be a good course of action?
>  I'm reluctant to use root to just delete the files, assuming that they are
>  in some PackageKit database somewhere. 
That cache _is_ the packagekit database. You can remove it safely.

>  Is there another step that should be added to the DNF system upgrade
>  document to have this directory cleaned? 
Possibly, yes.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Dario Lesca]

Il giorno mar, 27/12/2016 alle 11.42 -0500, Matthew Miller ha scritto:
>  That cache _is_ the packagekit database. You can remove it safely.
Why not use the same cache of dnf?

In this way when someone use dnf install something the cache will be
removed.

IMHO Two cache of same (BIG!) things is not a good solution.

-- 
Dario Lesca
(inviato dal mio Linux Fedora 24 Workstation)

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 03:21:06PM +0100, Dario Lesca wrote:
>  > That cache _is_ the packagekit database. You can remove it
> safely.
>  Why not use the same cache of dnf? 
That is work in progress. Both systems use the cache a little
differently and grew up independently, so there is some work to align
them. 

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Tim]

Dario Lesca:
> > Why not use the same cache of dnf? 
Matthew Miller:
>  That is work in progress. Both systems use the cache a little
>  differently and grew up independently, so there is some work to align
>  them.  
Separate caching for the metadata, but pooled caching (and automated
purging control) for the massively huge packages cache, would be a good
interim solution.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

less is more when playing with your cat...