What is broken with software update?

[John Mellor]

On Sun, 2015-09-13 at 10:07 -0400, John Mellor wrote:
> I'm getting to the point where I never want to use the graphical
> software update facility, since it is ALWAYS wrong.
> 
> I just logged in, pulled up software update, and knowing that it
> routinely messes up and says that there is nothing to update, I asked
> it to recheck for updates.  It came back again with no updates.
> 
> Then (since I'm developing a deep distrust of software update), I did
> a
> CLI dnf update.  There were 27 updates pending.  Clearly, software
> update is broken.
> 
> Its possible that it is configured out-of-the-box wrong.  Is there
> anything that I can set to make it actually work, or should I just
> stop
> using it because it is too broken to fix?
> 
> Example where software update has totally failed:
> 
> [prodadm at production ~]$ sudo dnf update
> [sudo] password for prodadm: 
> Fedora 22 - x86_64 - Updates                    2.3 MB/s |  14 MB    
>  00:06    
> Last metadata expiration check performed 0:00:14 ago on Sun Sep 13
> 09:55:47 2015.
> Dependencies resolved.
> =====================================================================
> ==
> =========
>  Package                      Arch     Version                 
>  Repository
>                                                                      
>   
>     Size
> =====================================================================
> ==
> =========
> Upgrading:
>  epson-inkjet-printer-escpr   x86_64   1.5.0-1.1lsb3.2.fc22    
>  updates
>    2.0 M
>  libxml2                      i686     2.9.2-4.fc22            
>  updates
>    684 k
>  libxml2                      x86_64   2.9.2-4.fc22            
>  updates
>    677 k
>  libxml2-devel                x86_64   2.9.2-4.fc22            
>  updates
>    1.1 M
>  libxml2-python               x86_64   2.9.2-4.fc22            
>  updates
>    248 k
>  mesa-dri-drivers             i686     10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>    8.5 M
>  mesa-dri-drivers             x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>    8.2 M
>  mesa-filesystem              i686     10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     35 k
>  mesa-filesystem              x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     35 k
>  mesa-libEGL                  i686     10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     97 k
>  mesa-libEGL                  x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     96 k
>  mesa-libEGL-devel            i686     10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     40 k
>  mesa-libEGL-devel            x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     40 k
>  mesa-libGL                   i686     10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>    213 k
>  mesa-libGL                   x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>    191 k
>  mesa-libGL-devel             x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>    160 k
>  mesa-libGLES                 x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     41 k
>  mesa-libOSMesa               i686     10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>    1.3 M
>  mesa-libOSMesa               x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>    1.2 M
>  mesa-libgbm                  i686     10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     55 k
>  mesa-libgbm                  x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     55 k
>  mesa-libgbm-devel            x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     28 k
>  mesa-libglapi                i686     10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     70 k
>  mesa-libglapi                x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     52 k
>  mesa-libwayland-egl          x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     37 k
>  mesa-libwayland-egl-devel    x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>     25 k
>  mesa-libxatracker            x86_64   10.6.3-2.20150729.fc22  
>  updates
>    1.2 M
> 
> Transaction Summary
> =====================================================================
> ==
> =========
> Upgrade  27 Packages
> 
> Total download size: 26 M
> Is this ok [y/N]: 

It looks like Gnome bug 739666 (
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=739666) describes the
problem, and its been around since last November.  However, nobody is
working on it.  Gnome Bugzilla seems to be missing the required actions
.  How do you get it confirmed and dramatically raised up in priority?