Differences between versions of wine on FC31 and FC32? 5.19/5.22

[Michael D. Setzer II]

Have 5 linux machine at home with 3 on FC32 and 2 on FC31.
One of the FC31s is my notebook, and noticed that the wine on the FC32 
has gone up to 5.22, while the FC31 are at 5.19? Checked the testing 
repos to see if it might be there, but nothing.

Usually, the latest version will get an update, and the other will show up 
within a couple days?? Just ran updates on machines, so noticed the 
differences. Never recall it being more than one different...

Thanks. Have a nice day, and be Safe..

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired)     
 mailto:[e-mail]                            
 mailto:[e-mail]
 Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
 G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+------------------------------------------------------------+

[Ed Greshko]

On 01/12/2020 18:30, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  Have 5 linux machine at home with 3 on FC32 and 2 on FC31.
>  One of the FC31s is my notebook, and noticed that the wine on the FC32
>  has gone up to 5.22, while the FC31 are at 5.19? Checked the testing
>  repos to see if it might be there, but nothing.
>
>  Usually, the latest version will get an update, and the other will show up
>  within a couple days?? Just ran updates on machines, so noticed the
>  differences. Never recall it being more than one different... 
Well, F31 is EOL.  So, it will no longer get updates.

---
The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.

[Michael D. Setzer II]

On 1 Dec 2020 at 18:32, Ed Greshko wrote:

From:           	Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com&gt;
Subject:        	Re: Differences between versions of wine on FC31 and 
FC32? 5.19/5.22
To:             	users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Date sent:      	Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:32:15 +0800
Send reply to:  	Community support for Fedora users 
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;

>  On 01/12/2020 18:30, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  > Have 5 linux machine at home with 3 on FC32 and 2 on FC31.
>  > One of the FC31s is my notebook, and noticed that the wine on the FC32
>  > has gone up to 5.22, while the FC31 are at 5.19? Checked the testing
>  > repos to see if it might be there, but nothing.
>  >
>  > Usually, the latest version will get an update, and the other will show up
>  > within a couple days?? Just ran updates on machines, so noticed the
>  > differences. Never recall it being more than one different...
>  
>  Well, F31 is EOL.  So, it will no longer get updates. 
Didn't realize is was EOL already?? Missed that FC33 was already fully 
out.  Will have to do an upgrade. Don't care for the latest changes they 
have forced on vncserver, but guess I'll have to figure it out. That is 
probable why I had overlooked it going to EOL. Have 4 systems I access 
via vnc and like the simple vncserver setup versus the new systemd 
setup..

Thanks for pointing out the EOL..

>  
>  ---
>  The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail] 

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired)     
 mailto:[e-mail]                            
 mailto:[e-mail]
 Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
 G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+------------------------------------------------------------+

[Ed Greshko]

On 01/12/2020 19:35, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
>  Thanks for pointing out the EOL.. 
In case others have missed it, this was sent out on Nov. 20.

Fedora 31 will go end of life for updates and support on 24th of
November 2020. No further updates, including security updates, will be
available for Fedora 31 after the said date. All the updates of Fedora
31 being pushed to stable will be stopped as well.

Fedora 32 will continue to receive updates until approximately one
month after the release of Fedora 34. The maintenance schedule of
Fedora releases is documented on the Fedora Project wiki [0]. The
fedora Project wiki also contains instructions [1] on how to upgrade
from a previous release of Fedora to a version receiving updates.



---
The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 21:35 +1000, Michael D. Setzer II via users
wrote:
>  Didn't realize is was EOL already?? Missed that FC33 was already
> fully 
>  out.  
It's worth subscribing to the Announce list. It's low-traffic.

poc

[Samuel Sieb]

On 12/1/20 3:35 AM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  Didn't realize is was EOL already?? Missed that FC33 was already
> fully
>  out.  Will have to do an upgrade. Don't care for the latest changes they
>  have forced on vncserver, but guess I'll have to figure it out. That is
>  probable why I had overlooked it going to EOL. Have 4 systems I access
>  via vnc and like the simple vncserver setup versus the new systemd
>  setup.. 
It's a change, but it's not too bad.  I got mine working and I'm happier 
to have it automatically start now.

[Michael D. Setzer II]

On 1 Dec 2020 at 11:16, Samuel Sieb wrote:

Subject:        	Re: Differences between versions of wine on FC31 and 
FC32? 5.19/5.22
To:             	users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
From:           	Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net&gt;
Date sent:      	Tue, 1 Dec 2020 11:16:53 -0800
Send reply to:  	Community support for Fedora users 
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;

>  On 12/1/20 3:35 AM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  > Didn't realize is was EOL already?? Missed that FC33 was already fully
>  > out.  Will have to do an upgrade. Don't care for the latest changes they
>  > have forced on vncserver, but guess I'll have to figure it out. That is
>  > probable why I had overlooked it going to EOL. Have 4 systems I access
>  > via vnc and like the simple vncserver setup versus the new systemd
>  > setup..
>  
>  It's a change, but it's not too bad.  I got mine working and I'm happier 
>  to have it automatically start now. 
They had a previous systemd system where you had to make special 
links, but I found that about have the time it would just fail? And process 
was totally random. I generally have it start in the rc.local, and that has 
never failed on me? Will have to give it a shot at some point. Usually, 
had the local user on system use one of the gnome desktops, while the 
vnc was running with the xfce.. Didn't ever notice any problems.

Thanks for the reply. New system does seem simplier than the old 
systemd process they mentioned.


>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail] 

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired)     
 mailto:[e-mail]                            
 mailto:[e-mail]
 Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
 G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+------------------------------------------------------------+

[Michael D. Setzer II]

On 1 Dec 2020 at 18:32, Ed Greshko wrote:

From:           	Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com&gt;
Subject:        	Re: Differences between versions of wine on FC31 and 
FC32? 5.19/5.22
To:             	users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Date sent:      	Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:32:15 +0800
Send reply to:  	Community support for Fedora users 
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;

>  On 01/12/2020 18:30, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  > Have 5 linux machine at home with 3 on FC32 and 2 on FC31.
>  > One of the FC31s is my notebook, and noticed that the wine on the FC32
>  > has gone up to 5.22, while the FC31 are at 5.19? Checked the testing
>  > repos to see if it might be there, but nothing.
>  >
>  > Usually, the latest version will get an update, and the other will show up
>  > within a couple days?? Just ran updates on machines, so noticed the
>  > differences. Never recall it being more than one different...
>  
>  Well, F31 is EOL.  So, it will no longer get updates. 
Just updated notebook to FC32 - took almost 14 hours.
25 minutes to download the 5.4G of the 5008 packages.
After reboot to upgrade
took little over 8 hours for upgrade part
then 4.5 hours for the clean part
and about another .5 hours for the verify and man-db stuff.
Then the reboot and it had to do some things.

So, now have the latest stuff. 
Still not clear why an upgrade like this takes so long...



>  
>  ---
>  The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail] 

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired)     
 mailto:[e-mail]                            
 mailto:[e-mail]
 Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
 G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+------------------------------------------------------------+

[Ed Greshko]

On 02/12/2020 10:57, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
>  Just updated notebook to FC32 - took almost 14 hours.
>  25 minutes to download the 5.4G of the 5008 packages.
>  After reboot to upgrade
>  took little over 8 hours for upgrade part
>  then 4.5 hours for the clean part
>  and about another .5 hours for the verify and man-db stuff.
>  Then the reboot and it had to do some things.
>
>  So, now have the latest stuff.
>  Still not clear why an upgrade like this takes so long... 
I don't know.  My updates have gone much quicker in comparison.

An old notebook with a single SSD took about 45 minutes to upgrade 2722 packages and an
additional
maybe 20 minutes or so to download them.

Another system with SSD took 31 minutes to upgrade 3096 packages with also about 20+
minutes to
download.

In both cases I didn't record the download times and they may have been done when
other processes
were taking up download bandwidth.

---
The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.

[Samuel Sieb]

On 12/1/20 6:57 PM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  Just updated notebook to FC32 - took almost 14 hours.
>  25 minutes to download the 5.4G of the 5008 packages.
>  After reboot to upgrade
>  took little over 8 hours for upgrade part
>  then 4.5 hours for the clean part
>  and about another .5 hours for the verify and man-db stuff.
>  Then the reboot and it had to do some things.
>  
>  So, now have the latest stuff.
>  Still not clear why an upgrade like this takes so long... 
Notebook hard drives are really slow now, but I've never seen one take 
that long.  This is why I put SSDs in everything.

[Michael D. Setzer II]

On 1 Dec 2020 at 21:39, Samuel Sieb wrote:

Subject:        	Re: Differences between versions of wine on FC31 and 
FC32? 5.19/5.22
To:             	users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
From:           	Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net&gt;
Date sent:      	Tue, 1 Dec 2020 21:39:38 -0800
Send reply to:  	Community support for Fedora users 
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;

>  On 12/1/20 6:57 PM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  > Just updated notebook to FC32 - took almost 14 hours.
>  > 25 minutes to download the 5.4G of the 5008 packages.
>  > After reboot to upgrade
>  > took little over 8 hours for upgrade part
>  > then 4.5 hours for the clean part
>  > and about another .5 hours for the verify and man-db stuff.
>  > Then the reboot and it had to do some things.
>  > 
>  > So, now have the latest stuff.
>  > Still not clear why an upgrade like this takes so long...
>  
>  Notebook hard drives are really slow now, but I've never seen one take 
>  that long.  This is why I put SSDs in everything. 
Copied lines from boot.log and
processed it in spreadsheet.
1-Prep Time??	1713.583866	00:28:33.58387
2-Update Total	27533.061562	07:38:53.06156
3-Clean Time	16712.719679	04:38:32.71968
4-Verify Time	1087.992662	00:18:07.99266
5-Final time	7.22305000000051	00:00:07.22305
6-Complete Time	47054.580819	13:04:14.58082

hdparm -Tt /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   10030 MB in  1.99 seconds = 5031.74 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 412 MB in  3.01 seconds = 136.93 MB/sec

Disk is 
Disk /dev/sda: 931.53 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
Disk model: ST1000LM035-1RK1

So don't know if that is anything?



>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail] 

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired)     
 mailto:[e-mail]                            
 mailto:[e-mail]
 Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
 G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+------------------------------------------------------------+

[Samuel Sieb]

On 12/1/20 11:45 PM, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
>  hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
>  
>  /dev/sda:
>    Timing cached reads:   10030 MB in  1.99 seconds = 5031.74 MB/sec
>    Timing buffered disk reads: 412 MB in  3.01 seconds = 136.93 MB/sec 
Those are actually particularly unhelpful benchmarks for this purpose as 
they are measuring cached and buffered reads.  You would need to run a 
benchmark for random read and write.  But it doesn't really matter. 
Laptop hard drives are really slow, so it's expected to take a long 
time, although the time yours took does seem a bit excessive.

[José Abílio Matos]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:39:38 AM WET Samuel Sieb wrote:
>  Notebook hard drives are really slow now, but I've never seen one
> take
>  that long. 
I saw. :-)

[Oh, wait let me change that emoji to :-( ;-)]

>  This is why I put SSDs in everything. 
And as you correctly point this is the main issue. A SSD in an old computer 
will make the computer fly because in some cases the performance bottleneck is 
the I/O component, and that clearly is the case when installing/updating 
thousand of packages.
-- 
José Matos

[Samuel Sieb]

On 12/2/20 12:43 AM, José Abílio Matos wrote:
>  On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:39:38 AM WET Samuel Sieb wrote:
>  
>   > Notebook hard drives are really slow now, but I've never seen one take
>  
>   > that long.
>  
>  I saw. :-)
>  
>  [Oh, wait let me change that emoji to :-( ;-)]
>  
>   > This is why I put SSDs in everything.
>  
>  And as you correctly point this is the main issue. A SSD in an old 
>  computer will make the computer fly because in some cases the 
>  performance bottleneck is the I/O component, and that clearly is the 
>  case when installing/updating thousand of packages. 
At one point I was upgrading a whole bunch of laptops to the next Fedora 
release and this was before I put SSDs in them.  There was one laptop 
that was at least 5 years older than the rest and it took half the time 
to do the upgrade than the new ones.

[Michael D. Setzer II]

On 2 Dec 2020 at 0:55, Samuel Sieb wrote:

Subject:        	Re: Differences between versions of wine on FC31 and 
FC32? 5.19/5.22
To:             	users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
From:           	Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net&gt;
Date sent:      	Wed, 2 Dec 2020 00:55:10 -0800
Send reply to:  	Community support for Fedora users 
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;

>  On 12/2/20 12:43 AM, José Abílio Matos wrote:
>  > On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:39:38 AM WET Samuel Sieb wrote:
>  > 
>  >  > Notebook hard drives are really slow now, but I've never seen one take
>  > 
>  >  > that long.
>  > 
>  > I saw. :-)
>  > 
>  > [Oh, wait let me change that emoji to :-( ;-)]
>  > 
>  >  > This is why I put SSDs in everything.
>  > 
>  > And as you correctly point this is the main issue. A SSD in an old 
>  > computer will make the computer fly because in some cases the 
>  > performance bottleneck is the I/O component, and that clearly is the 
>  > case when installing/updating thousand of packages.
>  
>  At one point I was upgrading a whole bunch of laptops to the next Fedora 
>  release and this was before I put SSDs in them.  There was one laptop 
>  that was at least 5 years older than the rest and it took half the time 
>  to do the upgrade than the new ones. 
This notebook is an Aspire E1-731-4699. The original hard drive was a 
500G, but upgraded it to the 1Tb drive years ago. Everything else seems 
to run just fine. Do have a very old IBM thinkpad R60, and it did 
upgrade a lot faster than this one, but it has a few less packages installed.

Question: Doesn't the dnf process use the cache feature of the disk?? 
Know that the higher number is actually the speed of accessing the ram 
buffer of the disk. But the lower number is the physical speed of the 
disk. Just know that I started process at about after 11pm, and the 
download only took about 25 minutes for the 5.4G of files it reported.
It was just the update.

The first few enties:
[ 1713.583866] dnf[683]:   Running scriptlet: libgcc-10.2.1-6.fc32.x86_64                 
          1/1
[ 1714.786807] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : libgcc-10.2.1-6.fc32.x86_64                 
      1/10017
[ 1720.550349] dnf[683]:   Running scriptlet: libgcc-10.2.1-6.fc32.x86_64                 
      1/10017
[ 1721.024442] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : javapackages-filesystem-5.3.0-9.fc32.noarch 
      
2/10017
[ 1722.464974] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : fonts-filesystem-2.0.3-1.fc32.noarch        
      3/10017
[ 1722.991203] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : kf5-filesystem-5.75.0-1.fc32.x86_64         
      4/10017
[ 1725.740344] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : linux-firmware-whence-20201022-113.fc32.noar
      
5/10017
[ 1726.414571] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : fedora-logos-30.0.2-4.fc32.x86_64           
      6/10017

the last few and then clean up starts
[29154.072094] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : gstreamer1-plugins-base-1.16.2-3.fc32.i686  
   
5002/10017
[29173.893098] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : libFAudio-20.10-1.fc32.i686                 
   5003/10017
[29196.157601] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : wine-core-5.22-1.fc32.i686                  
   5004/10017
[29217.288364] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : wine-5.22-1.fc32.x86_64                     
   5005/10017
[29234.820825] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : wine-devel-5.22-1.fc32.i686                 
   5006/10017
[29242.109709] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : nss-3.58.0-3.fc32.i686                      
   5007/10017
[29244.808671] dnf[683]:   Running scriptlet: nss-3.58.0-3.fc32.i686                      
   5007/10017
[29246.645428] dnf[683]:   Upgrading        : brotli-1.0.9-3.fc32.i686                    
   5008/10017
[29252.598328] dnf[683]:   Cleanup          : python3-samba-2:4.11.14-0.fc31.x86_64       
   
5009/10017
[29253.238475] dnf[683]:   Running scriptlet: firefox-82.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64                
   5010/10017
[29253.238634] dnf[683]:   Cleanup          : firefox-82.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64                
   5010/10017
[29258.067048] dnf[683]:   Running scriptlet: firefox-82.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64                
   5010/10017
[29258.225288] dnf[683]:   Running scriptlet: samba-client-2:4.11.14-0.fc31.x86_64        
   
5011/10017
[29258.252223] dnf[683]:   Cleanup          : samba-client-2:4.11.14-0.fc31.x86_64        
   
5011/10017
[29267.404067] dnf[683]:   Running scriptlet: samba-client-2:4.11.14-0.fc31.x86_64        
   
5011/10017
[29274.681484] dnf[683]:   Running scriptlet: samba-2:4.11.14-0.fc31.x86_64               
   
5012/10017
[29274.682893] dnf[683]:   Cleanup          : samba-2:4.11.14-0.fc31.x86_64               
   5012/10017

The lines from the boot.log about the upgrade are 31624 in total
[47054.579629] dnf[683]: Complete!
[47054.580819] dnf[683]: Cleaning up downloaded data...

Well thanks for the time. 
My first computer was a Heathkit H-120 with dual cpus. 8080 and an 
8mzh 8088. Would only use one or other, not both at same time. Had 
768K RAM and 192k video board. Much nicer than IBM PC. 20M hard 
disk was an option, but was an extra $2000 on top of the $2349 for the 
kit. So, ran it on dual 360K floppys. At the time, the college mini system 
was an IBM System 34 with 96K of ram and 63.9M hard disk. Better 
than the IBM 1130 I have in high school that had 8K of Ram and 5M 
hard disk, and used punched cards..

Perhaps an SSD drive would change things.

Be Safe.



>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[Samuel Sieb]

On 12/2/20 2:22 AM, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
>  Question: Doesn't the dnf process use the cache feature of the
> disk?? 
Not really, since it's mostly writing new data.  It's not going to avoid 
the cache, but the use of the cache is completely up to the drive.

>  Know that the higher number is actually the speed of accessing the
> ram 
>  buffer of the disk. But the lower number is the physical speed of the 
>  disk. 
I was slight wrong about that benchmark info, but it's still not a 
useful measurement.

>  hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
>
>  /dev/sda:
>    Timing cached reads:   10030 MB in  1.99 seconds = 5031.74 MB/sec 
This has nothing to do with the drive at all.  It's measuring the 
throughput of the Linux buffering system.  It doesn't touch the drive at 
all.

>    Timing buffered disk reads: 412 MB in  3.01 seconds = 136.93 MB/sec
This is a sequential read measurement and it's not a bad number, but 
it's completely irrelevant to dnf.  You need to measure write speed and 
random read/write access times.

>  Just know that I started process at about after 11pm, and the 
>  download only took about 25 minutes for the 5.4G of files it reported.
>  It was just the update. 
Yes, it's the updating part that takes a long time because that's when 
it's doing lots of random reads and writes of the disk.

>  Perhaps an SSD drive would change things. 
It would drastically change things.  They have virtually no seek time, 
so it's all read/write speed and for reference, this is my laptop SSD:
Timing buffered disk reads: 1518 MB in  3.00 seconds = 505.41 MB/sec
A write speed test gave me 467 MB/s