On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 16:00 -0700, Kam Leo wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:34 -0700, Alan Evans wrote: > >> I have myself found that "yum clean all" apparently fixes many > >> problems even when I'm not sure why it should. When I have a problem > >> updating, I usually start with cleaning the cache and metadata just to > >> establish a baseline. Ninety percent of the time, this first step > >> makes my problem go away. But apparently that approach means I'm > >> stupid. > > > > Have you tried "yum clean metadata" in any of these cases, rather than > > "yum clean all"? If not, how do you know that the former would not have > > worked? > > > > My personal experience is that cleaning metadata has *always* fixed > > problems without the need for cleaning the cache. That may not be > > everyone's experience, but it is mine. Even if it doesn't always work, > > it is always faster, and doesn't stop you cleaning the cache later if > > you need to. IOW the sensible procedure is: > > > > yum clean metadata > > iff that doesn't solve the problem: yum clean all > > > > poc > > That's two operations! My personal experience is that very few > packages are in the yum package cache when I encounter a problem.. I > have an acceptable speed network connection (8 MBits/S) so the cost of > re-downloading packages is not a big factor for me. The "clean all" > option is more efficient for me than iteratively going through the > "clean" options one at a time. For those of us on 1 Mbps (shared among several machines in the home) the equation is different. I'm sure people on dialup feel this even more strongly. poc -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
