Fedora install docs one line wrong

[2E0PGS]

Problem encountered on https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/linux-package-manager/fedora28/sdk-current
Operating System: Linux Fedora 28 - x64.

Same for Fedora 27 instructions.

Should be dnf check-update not dnf update.

[dagood]

Is it useful to have a dnf update/dnf check-update line at all? When I run through the Fedora install steps, I skip this command entirely and it has worked fine for me. My usage of Fedora is very narrow, however, maybe there's some common configuration that makes it necessary.

I suspect the dnf update line is there because it seems analogous to the apt-get update step from Ubuntu (but it isn't).

/cc @leecow

[leecow]

check-update can be run without sudo and only refreshes the local package db. update requires sudo and will install all discovered updates. For the use case we are covering here, I think check-update is the better choice.

[dagood]

Why is it useful to run dnf check-update in this scenario?

[leecow]

This could be a faulty assumption on my part. I know apt searches the local package db to determine if something is available and if it's not found, simply says so. apt-get update refreshes the local db and then updates can be found.

[dagood]

Yeah, dnf install has no qualms about fetching info from remote repositories to find what things are available where. This works fine:

docker run -it --rm fedora:28 bash -c '
  dnf install -y wget
  rpm --import https://packages.microsoft.com/keys/microsoft.asc
  wget -q -O /etc/yum.repos.d/microsoft-prod.repo https://packages.microsoft.com/config/fedora/27/prod.repo
  dnf install -y dotnet-sdk-2.2
  dotnet --info'

[scalablecory]

@dagood @leecow it looks like this is still the instruction given today; does a change need to be made here or can we close the issue?

[2E0PGS]

I would suggest it needs to change otherwise it's instructing people to update their entire system. ⁣-- Peter Stevenson (2E0PGS) http://www.m3pgs.co.uk​

…

On 30 Sep 2019, 18:22, at 18:22, Cory Nelson ***@***.***> wrote: @dagood @leecow it looks like this is still the instruction given today; does a change need to be made here or can we close the issue? -- You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #3291 (comment)

[dagood]

Agreed. Filed an internal issue to maybe get more visibility on removing the dnf update, yum update, and zypper update steps, which are along the same lines.

[leecow]

Merged the change to remove update from the rpm-based instructions. Should be live in about 20 minutes.