dnf is completly broken

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net>
wrote:

>
>
> Am 27.09.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Neal Gompa:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>     Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
>>
>>         This is quite tiresome.  dnf clearly isn't "completely broken".
>> It
>>         may have a bug, but the correct place to put that is in Bugzilla.
>>
>>
>>     a package manager which pretends "nothing to do" after rm -rf
>>     /var/cache/dnf/* while there are two fresh builds is by definition
>>     broken
>>
>> ​My question to you is... why are you doing "rm -rf /var/cache/dnf/*"​?
>> Why not just do "sudo dnf <action> --refresh"? That forces DNF to
>> actually look at everything again. If your goal is to clean everything
>> out, then "sudo dnf clean all" would do the trick too (which also worked
>> in the yum days)
>>
>
> how often do you ask that question again?
>
>
​I ask it because sometimes people are doing things that are a fat-finger
away from being really bad when it isn't necessary.​ If there are better
and safer ways to do things, I usually ask why they aren't using them.
Sometimes there's a good reason, other times there isn't. As for the
frequency in which I ask it, usually not that often anymore, but it used to
come up more often.


> a empty "/var/cache/yum|dnf" is a by definition and unconditional empty
> cache


​Perhaps so, but how is DNF supposed to know it's empty? When it hits and
has a file not found? I know that when I do a "dnf clean all", it removes
the solv cache and the metadata cache and writes a file into /var/cache/dnf
that indicates that the data has expired, which prompts DNF to pull
everything on the next run.



> why should i trust a software obviously not working with the basic
> commands right in case of other ones?
>
> ​
​Maybe because it isn't obvious. Frankly, "rm -rf /var/cache/dnf/*" is a
bad idea most of the time. ​Sledgehammers aren't needed here. :)



> and BTW we are not a Ubuntu - what's up with all that "sudo" stuff - if i
> am root then i am root, that's it
>
>
​Erm, we've had the option in Fedora to set up sudo at install time for
quite a while now. I've used it all the time because I rarely need to be
superuser beyond an action or two. Sure, I could just switch to root, but I
don't need to unless I'm doing a lot of actions that require superuser
privileges in quick succession. You can replace it with "su -c" or you can
just use it as a marker to indicate you need to be root for it.​


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150927/ba8231e9/attachment.html>