DNF vs. YUM

Sam Varshavchik mrsam at courier-mta.com
Thu Mar 13 23:44:49 UTC 2014


Jan Zelený writes:

> On 13. 3. 2014 at 13:41:48, Tethys wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Mark Haney
> <mhaney at practichem.com> wrote:
> > > So, let me get this straight, DNF doesn't check the (online?) repo
> > > metadata when I call 'sudo dnf update'?  That's how I'm reading this.
> > >
> > >  If that's true, why the devil not?
> >
> > At a guess, for marketing reasons. People see apt as being quicker
> > than yum, and in a large part that's because it doesn't update
> > metadata where yum does, so people are comparing two different things.
> > I believe that not checking metadata is retarded and I don't think
> > we're right in moving to the same architecture. But it wouldn't
> > surprise me if that's the rationale.
>
> And you are absolutely correct.
>
> The metadata are quite large and downloading them every single time is
> time consuming. There is usually no harm in getting the updates a few days
> later and if you really want to get the very latest updates, you still have
> options how to achieve that - either change the time period for how long the
> MD should be cached or run dnf clean * before you run the update.

And that's exactly how it's going to end up playing out, I'll bet anything  
on this. Most people will simply clear the cache explicitly, before they run  
dnf. Or, they'll put it in a crontab to run every night.

Making technical decisions for admittingly marketing reasons is, like  
someone else put it, retarded.

But nobody should be surprised. I'm not. Wouldn't be the first major  
technical decision that Fedora has made for purely retarded reasons.  
People's exhibit A: systemd.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140313/06fac2c7/attachment.sig>


More information about the users mailing list