On 9.4.2015 20:23, Radek Holy wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Przemek Klosowski" <przemek.klosowski(a)nist.gov>
> To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 5:13:49 PM
> Subject: Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum
> On 04/09/2015 11:05 AM, Michal Luscon wrote:
>> On 04/09/2015 05:01 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>
>>> Using metadata from Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015
>>
>
>> ^^^ the key part of DNF output
>
> Well, OK, but when I just re-run 'dnf update' it updates firefox now:
>> Using metadata from Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015
>
>> ^^^ same timestamp as before, but different result
>
>> ...
>
>> Dependencies resolved.
>
>> ...
>
>> firefox x86_64 37.0.1-1.fc21 updates 69 M
>
> This is a definition of craziness: you do the same thing twice and expect a
> different return. In the end, I can't say that it doesn't work but I have an
> uneasy feeling that I do not understand how an essential part of my system
> works.
The reason is that even if metadata of the "updates" repository have been
refreshed, there is probably another repository with matadata from Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015
(it has probably longer expiration period). So, yes, I agree that this is confusing.
Do you have a better idea than printing the timestamp for each repository?
Maybe it could print oldest + newest timestamp, possibly with repo names?
I mean something like:
"Metadata: Oldest repo fedora-release (Fri Apr 3 03:24:08 2015, 4 days old),
newest repo fedora-updates-testing (Fri Apr 10 00:00:00 2015, 10 minutes
old)." or something like that.
--
Petr Spacek @ Red Hat