Hi All,
Is this me or them?
Does "fedora-updates-testing-modular.repo" supersede "fedora-updates-testing.repo"?
Many thanks, -T
# dnf --enablerepo=* update ... Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Test Updates 7.2 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00 Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing' Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing'
# ls /etc/yum.repos.d brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_.repo fedora-cisco-openh264.repo fedora-modular.repo fedora.repo fedora-updates-modular.repo fedora-updates.repo fedora-updates-testing-modular.repo fedora-updates-testing.repo metasploit-framework.repo pgdg-fedora-all.repo rpmfusion-free.repo rpmfusion-free-updates.repo rpmfusion-free-updates-testing.repo rpmfusion-nonfree.repo rpmfusion-nonfree-updates.repo rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing.repo
On 11/5/19 8:50 AM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
Is this me or them?
Does "fedora-updates-testing-modular.repo" supersede "fedora-updates-testing.repo"?
Probably an issue with a mirror.
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ sudo dnf --refresh --enablerepo=updates-testing --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular check-update Adobe Systems Incorporated 3.0 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 7.3 kB/s | 6.3 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 - Updates 11 kB/s | 6.9 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 - Test Updates 223 kB/s | 530 kB 00:02 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Test Updates 10 kB/s | 6.7 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 11 kB/s | 7.0 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 9.9 kB/s | 6.4 kB 00:00 google-chrome 31 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 google-earth-pro 52 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 google-earth 51 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free tainted 2.9 kB/s | 2.5 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free - Updates 3.8 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free 3.1 kB/s | 2.6 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree tainted 16 kB/s | 14 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - Updates 17 kB/s | 14 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree 14 kB/s | 15 kB 00:01 Fedora 29 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 2.0 kB/s | 181 B 00:00
autocorr-en.noarch 1:6.3.3.2-2.fc31 updates-testing binutils.x86_64 2.32-26.fc31 updates-testing binutils-gold.x86_64 2.32-26.fc31 updates-testing blivet-data.noarch 1:3.1.6-1.fc31 updates-testing
ETC
Try again....
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:50:23 -0800 ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing' Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing'
I've been getting this a lot for random different repos. I usually wait a few minutes and run "dnf makecache" again, and it works fine.
On 11/4/19 5:00 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:50:23 -0800 ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing' Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing'
I've been getting this a lot for random different repos. I usually wait a few minutes and run "dnf makecache" again, and it works fine.
That fixed one. Now I got another one:
Maybe they are just busy with FC31 coming out
# dnf makecache ... Metadata cache created.
# dnf --enablerepo=* update ... Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-free-source'
On 11/5/19 12:08 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 11/4/19 5:00 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:50:23 -0800 ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing' Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing'
I've been getting this a lot for random different repos. I usually wait a few minutes and run "dnf makecache" again, and it works fine.
That fixed one. Now I got another one:
Maybe they are just busy with FC31 coming out
# dnf makecache ... Metadata cache created.
# dnf --enablerepo=* update ... Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-free-source'
FWIW, I find --enablerepo=* unnecessarily broad. Have you actually installed any "source" rpms or "debuginfo" packages?
Additionally, one must understand that updating everything from "testing" comes with a degree of risk. In some cases the reason for a package being in "testing" is to fix issues which have been report/discovered. Sometimes, yes rarely, the test package may not fix the issue but break something else.
On systems I care about I only update from "testing" selectively.
On 11/4/19 8:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 11/5/19 12:08 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 11/4/19 5:00 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:50:23 -0800 ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing' Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'updates-testing'
I've been getting this a lot for random different repos. I usually wait a few minutes and run "dnf makecache" again, and it works fine.
That fixed one. Now I got another one:
Maybe they are just busy with FC31 coming out
# dnf makecache ... Metadata cache created.
# dnf --enablerepo=* update ... Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-free-source'
FWIW, I find --enablerepo=* unnecessarily broad.
Indeed!
Have you actually installed any "source" rpms or "debuginfo" packages?
A few times. I have also rebuilt SRPMS from Fedora to run on RHEL/CentOS. Thank goodness I don't have RHEL/CentOS to deal with anymore. My opinion on those guys is rather harsh.
Additionally, one must understand that updating everything from "testing" comes with a degree of risk.
In my experience, not much. Fedora is very high quality.
In some cases the reason for a package being in "testing" is to fix issues which have been report/discovered. Sometimes, yes rarely, the test package may not fix the issue but break something else.
Haven't seen it, but no doubt it sometime occurs.
On systems I care about I only update from "testing" selectively.
Hi Ed,
Me? Yes and no.
On my customer's machines, I never use the testing repos.
On my machine, I always want to know what is in the pipeline, so I enable them all.
The downside is that you have to be careful what repo's you have installed. I clean out all repos I am not using. If in doubt, I do the dnf list with only that repo enabled to see what I am using from it. I have found a bunch of zeros too. As you said "unnecessarily broad". Pruning repo helps that.
And since most of my work comes from Windows, I find the testing versions from Fedroa to be a bazillion times more reliable that anything from M$. Fedora's testing versions hardly ever goof anything. And when they do, they are ridiculously easy to handle: "dnf downgrade" is your friend.
-T
-
Ed Greshko -
ToddAndMargo -
Tom Horsley