Re: dnf: can i "tag" installed packages so i can remove them later?
Il 14/07/2018 13:11, Robert P. J. Day ha scritto: > > scanned the dnf man page, did not see an immediate solution so i'll > ask here: > > is there any way to dynamically tag or label packages during dnf > install so i can remove them all later by that tag or label? on more > than one occasion, i've had to install dozens (or hundreds) of > packages, *knowing* that i would need them only for a while, at which > time it would be nice to be able to remove them all via that tag or > label. > > i guess i'm after something i would think of as a "dynamic group", > where i could run, say: > > $ sudo dnf install --tag="my_project" docker > $ sudo dnf install --tag="my_project" erlang > > and possibly other totally unrelated packages, then toss them all > later with: > > $ sudo dnf remove --tag="new_project" > > is there anything like this? (and, yes, i can appreciate the > possibility for conflicts when an initially "tagged" package would > later be installed explicitly, and so on.) > > rday > Have you considered simply creating an empty RPM called, say, myproject1.rpm, which references the RPMs you need? When done simply uninstall it. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JIWEOGY6MXCJ5WBUC3S42ZHDB46KM2LH/
Fedora 23 Apper display garbled
Hello list, this is my first question on Fedora lists. Gentle guiding appreciated. Problem: when I run Apper the progress information, such as "Downloading gcc" and similar, is a bit garbled. It seems that it writes "Downloading" first, then overwrites it with "Downloading gcc" shifted to the right by 4 or 5 spaces, making it hard to read. Is this normal? Is it a known bug? And how do I search the list to see if it has been discussed already? Thanks. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F18 updates
On 29/09/2016 03:36, Dave Stevens wrote: > significant ways. But I use Mint on a laptop and boy was the changeover > from 17 to 18 ever easy, just point and click and lotsa useful new stuff. Not for the KDE edition -- reinstall is required. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
F25 install old computer delayed after fsck
I am trying to install F25 KDE 64 bit on an old HP Proliant with 2GB RAM and a 2005 BIOS currently used in production (don't look at me, look at the boss instead). The install is very very slow and took more than a half hour to fsck the 2TB raid 1 disks. I only initially want to install it on a free 20GB ext4 partition, no raid. Cannot unplug the 2TB disks. Is there a way to avoid the useless half hour fsck? ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
EFI F25 LVM install does not need separate /boot partition
It seems that on EFI hardware Fedora 25 can be installed without the suggested separate /boot partition. I just selected auto partitioning on a LVM device, then deleted the given new /boot partition. It seems to work ok. Is it safe? If so, why does the Fedora installer propose a separate /boot in this EFI hardware case with GPT partitioning? Are there advantages/disadvantages? Skipping the creation of a separate /boot seems very convenient since a new install under LVM would only require one new physical partition, and reduce clutter (though I am a little suspicious about having swap under LVM too - is it shared by other OS' too?). On the other hand note that the Btrfs volume install does not allow you to delete the /boot partition. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Can F25 install Btrfs on top of LVM?
I am trying to install F25 on a legacy box that already has a working Ext4 over LVM over Md raid 1 of 2x2TB disks, and only a single empty non raid partition on the second disk. The plan is to nondestructively upgrade the old OS to F25 by keeping both for a while, giving the user the option to boot the old OS if they want, without any further down time. Meanwhile I would slowly move the old data over to new dynamic Btrfs raid1, to take advantage of its gorgeous scrub and autorepair mechanism. All the work must be done remotely. The installer is confusing to me. Logic would suggest that you choose LVM device, then select a Btrfs volume instead of ext4, but there is no such option! Another sweaty palmed option would be to accept the ext4 over LVM install, then remotely online convert to btrfs, yikes! Then add magical incantations to fstab and/or grub and pray that the next remote reboot does not turn into a tragedy! ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: EFI F25 LVM install does not need separate /boot partition
On 30/12/2016 19:46, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 12/30/2016 02:19 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> Is it safe? > > If your system boots, then probably, yes. > Actually, I just found out that might not be the case. Out of five F25 installs I tried on one machine today, the ones without separate /boot destroyed all the others! This looks like a bug. I'll investigate when I can. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in another post, each install takes at least 40 minutes before it can get going due to the fsck's. The /boot weirdness mingles with the general weirdness of multiple installs with the same name -- fedora in this case, though mint/ubuntu was doing it too. I wish devs would be extra careful and regular with boot related problems, no funny stuff, considering the huge costs of dealing with them compared to regular apps. >> If so, why does the Fedora installer propose a separate >> /boot in this EFI hardware case with GPT partitioning? > > The kernel and initrd need to be in a place that GRUB2 can read them. > Anaconda can build up a lot of different storage stacks, and it's > simpler and more reliable to default to putting the kernel and initrd on > their own partition. It's more likely to produce a working system, and > beyond that, it's a lot easier to work with if you need to do any kind > of repair/recovery. > >> Are there >> advantages/disadvantages? Skipping the creation of a separate /boot >> seems very convenient since a new install under LVM would only require >> one new physical partition > > Well, two, at least. You need your EFI partition and your LVM > partition, at a minimum. I beg to differ on both counts, the simplicity thing and the two partition minimum thing. Most EFI Linux installs happen on machines that already have a Windows EFI partition, along with another 3-4 maintenance ones, not to mention other possible Linuces. Therefore each new install could in the most common case involve only one new partition. Also with a large number of partitions it is often conceptually and practically simpler to reduce new partitions to one for each os. For example today I installed Fedoras and Mints on two machines: a laptop with 9 partitions and 6 os'es, and a server with 34 partitions and 5 os's. And I am not done yet. You see why it is often better to deal with the simple equation: 1 os = 1 partition? Especially now that we have powerful container like technologies like LVM and Btrfs. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can F25 install Btrfs on top of LVM?
On 30/12/2016 19:54, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 12/30/2016 02:39 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> The plan is to nondestructively >> upgrade the old OS to F25 by keeping both for a while, giving the user >> the option to boot the old OS if they want > > I don't understand how "upgrading" the old OS will be "non destructive" > or give the user the option to boot the old system. Can you clarify? An > upgrade is generally understood to be an in-place operation, in which > case booting the old system would not be an option. The upgrade requirement is for the user to revert back and boot the old OS if it does not work or they don't like it. So the reversible upgrade cannot be in-place: basically you have both the old and the new OS's access the common data in a separate partition. When they test and OK the change I'll disable the old boot and remotely start to transfer the 2TB data to the new OS's better data structures, as I mentioned just below. > >> Meanwhile I would slowly move the old data over to new dynamic >> Btrfs raid1, to take advantage of its gorgeous scrub and autorepair >> mechanism. > > As I understand it, those scrub and repair options really work best when > btrfs is directly on top of the individual disk partitions. If you put Yes! (Almost). That is exactly why I am doing this. See below for the "almost" part. > stuff like md RAID underneath btrfs, it loses the ability to detect and > repair some types of errors. For example, if you configure data > mirroring / RAID1 in btrfs, it will write each data block to each disk > with checksum. When you scrub the data, if there was a bit flip or > other error, btrfs can determine which disk has the correct data and > replace the block on the disk where the data is corrupt. If you have > btrfs on top of an abstraction, like md RAID, then btrfs can only > directly access one copy. If the copy is corrupt, btrfs can identify > that as being the case, but it doesn't have the second copy to restore, > so it can't fix the error. md RAID will do its own check and where it > sees mismatching blocks, it doesn't know which is correct and can't > reliably fix the data like btrfs can. Yes, I completely agree. Btrfs over Md cannot scrub autorepair. That's why I want to do Btrfs over LVM instead! > > If you want to take advantage of it, you probably *really* want to build > an entirely new system. I don't understand this. I thought I _was_ building an entirely new system. > >> The installer is confusing to me. Logic would suggest that you choose >> LVM device, then select a Btrfs volume instead of ext4, but there is no >> such option! > > I haven't verified that, but it wouldn't surprise me, for the reasons > described above. The reasons you gave are for Btrfs over Md, and they are good reasons. They do not apply to Btrfs over LVM though. For example, you have two disks, sda and sdb, with lots of partitions. You create LVM volume group vga out of all the empty partitions on sda, and similarly vgb out of sdb. Now create LVM logical volumes lva and lvb out of vga and vgb respectively. Now you got two block devices, which are just as good as the raw disk partitions you mentioned above for the purpose of making a Btrfs RAID1 out of. With scrub autorepair included! This works because you let Btrfs do the RAID1, and LVM only the volume management. As it should be. Only I can't coax the F25 installer to do it for me. I think it is getting its volume management and raid roles all mixed up, to "simplify" things. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root partition. The only difference compared with the first successful install is that there is a bit less disk free space, and of course another F25 already installed. Previous install was about 20GB in 60GB free space. Current failed attempt is also 20GB in remaining 35GB space. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 12:42, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >> partition. >> >> The only difference compared with the first successful install is that >> there is a bit less disk free space, and of course another F25 already >> installed. Previous install was about 20GB in 60GB free space. Current >> failed attempt is also 20GB in remaining 35GB space. > > Which installation mode have you tried? Automatic partitioning or manual > partitioning setup? Always manual. Also note that "manual" does not seem to be very manual after all. In previous more complicated installs it chooses put new partitions in seemingly arbitrary empty spaces like LVMs. And when it refuses to carry out my indications it does not give detailed reasons why, just a generic can't do it. Very frustrating. I have not figured out how to manually choose a partition myself. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 15:07, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 13:01:03 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >>> Which installation mode have you tried? Automatic partitioning or manual >>> partitioning setup? >> >> Always manual. >> >> Also note that "manual" does not seem to be very manual after all. > > Better not comment on it before you are familiar with it. ;-) > If you've really entered the manual partitioning setup, you can choose > individual partitions, their mount points and reformatting option > yourself. I tried that many times. Sometimes it works sometimes not. Very frustrating. Why not comment? We should make light not darkness. Is there a lot of censorship on this list too? Just preface everything with IMHO and you're all set. IMHO. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 15:31, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 15:17:43 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >>> Better not comment on it before you are familiar with it. ;-) >>> If you've really entered the manual partitioning setup, you can choose >>> individual partitions, their mount points and reformatting option >>> yourself. >> >> I tried that many times. Sometimes it works sometimes not. Very frustrating. >> >> Why not comment? We should make light not darkness. > > Then how about explaining in detail what exactly you've tried? If you > tell the installer which existing partition or LV to use for the root fs, > the installer doesn't override your decision. Unless you ask the installer > to do automatic partitioning. I have tried that very thing many times. It seems to fail in complicated situations. And it never gives much of a diagnostic message beyond "your configuration cannot be implemented" or some such. I'll try to repeat those experiments and give details, starting tomorrow, if I can. > >> Is there a lot of censorship on this list too? > > That's an irrational comment. No, that's a question. I am new to the list and would like to know if it works efficiently or it is a wasteland of egos like most of the internet. Can anyone express opinions here without being shot at? I sure hope so. In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? > >> Just preface everything with IMHO and >> you're all set. IMHO. > > Don't let your frustration pile up so quickly. Try again, take notes > of the steps and give a more detailed description of what you've tried. > I do manual installs of Fedora alongside existing installations often, I have also done many installs of other distros in mixed environments. > and your description so far sounds like PEBKAC. ;-) I might accept that as your own opinion if you knew the actual details, which I have not given yet, because I would have to reinstall yet again. But all you know is that I have tried manual installation and failed. Thus your contribution so far sounds like an ad hominem. ;-) > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 16:30, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 16:15 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >>> That's an irrational comment. >> >> No, that's a question. I am new to the list and would like to know if it >> works efficiently or it is a wasteland of egos like most of the >> internet. Can anyone express opinions here without being shot at? I sure >> hope so. In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? > > The list policies and archives are both online, so you can verify that > moderators have a very light hand and only intervene if things > degenerate to personal insults, which is rare. Plenty of us disagree > about plenty of things, but you'll find that people are helpful when > you give enough relevant information. Thank you for answering, that is useful. Saying "the installer is awkward" > is not information, it's an opinion and tells us nothing except that > you had a problem with it. In the context of this discussion it is a useful information to say "the installer is awkward" because it shows where I am coming from. In the last 24 hours, as you can read in the last few posts, I have discovered (and it is still work in progress) that: 1. The installer takes 40 minutes before it can even get going on my machine, due to improper fscking. A bug. In the same last 24 hour I installed Mint and Rosalinux on the same machine in 15 min. total each. 2. If you include /boot inside LVM it works, but the second F25 install erases all previous installs from boot menu. 3. If you already have one other LVM install with some free space, the new one forcibly grabs that free space. 4. If empty space is too low, according to unfathomable and varying criteria (at one point I had 35GB free) it fails. 5. All the above failures without so much as a: Sorry mate, I tried making a 10GB root partition inside /dev/sdb17 but could not because there are only 8GB available. Instead I get something like: Your configuration does not work, bud. 6. Etc. So when I try to address other issues it is more efficient and descriptive to not repeat the whole thing every time and just summarize with "the installer is awkward". It is the context which gives meaning to the words. I also had a problem with it about 3 years > ago but was very explicit about what was happening and no-one shot me > down. Thank you, that is very useful. It's the first admission that some problems existed at least in the past. > > poc > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 16:41, Ranjan Maitra wrote: >>> Is there a lot of censorship on this list too? >>> >>> That's an irrational comment. >> >> No, that's a question. I am new to the list and would like to know if it >> works efficiently or it is a wasteland of egos like most of the >> internet. Can anyone express opinions here without being shot at? I sure >> hope so. In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? >> > > This is a very helpful list, perhaps the most (along with openbox and R-help) > that I have membership too, People are different, of course, some respondents > are caustic but helpful, some are very gentle and so, some others caustic and > unhelpful and some others gentle and unhelpful. > > Of course, the same goes for questioners also. Some wanting to learn and some > do not even bother acknowledging if their problem was solved or not. Of > course, it does not help at all when they do not provide any details and > expect people wanting to help to divine their issues and some even get very > cross when asked otherwise. > > We don't often recognize that these are volunteers and helping to the best of > their ability and resources (mostly time) that are in short supply. > > But overall, a very friendly and helpful list with people willing to take the > time. I learnt linux exclusively here, though I had used linux (RH and SuSE) > predating Fedora. > > >> I might accept that as your own opinion if you knew the actual details, >> which I have not given yet, because I would have to reinstall yet again. >> But all you know is that I have tried manual installation and failed. >> Thus your contribution so far sounds like an ad hominem. ;-) > > See above. Note also, that the written word is not always the same as in > contextual conversation, so with that I would not be quick to judge. I agree, that's exactly what I said in my last post 1 minute ago. Also, if you read the whole quote, you'll see that it was not me who was quick to judge. Going for coffee. I'll be back in an hour. > > Ranjan > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 17:23, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >> partition. > > This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — > and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. So, > while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not > surprised to hear it doesn't. I tested about 10 F25 installs yesterday, plus 2 Rosalinux R8 and 2 Mint 18, on an old server with 2GB RAM and a new laptop with 12GB RAM. All 3 OS' had to deal with previous installed versions of the same, except a couple of cases where I restarted from an empty disk. Only the F25's gave me problems on both boxes and in different independent ways. An interesting behavior, as I explained a few posts ago, happens when you install a second or a third F25, all in the standard LVM device configuration. They seem to work ok, though there no indication on the grub menu which one you are running. The problem appears when you install a new F25 with the /boot partition _inside_ the LVM container, which seems to work. Except, upon reboot the others are gone! Also I tried my preferred configuration: Btrfs RAID1 over LVM, which should give the best of both worlds: awesome scrub autorepair and proper pooling of same disk spare partitions! The installer barks. It seems to think that If I want to use Btrfs as a raid fs I also have to use it as a volume manager. According the the Fedora info mentioned a few posts back this should only cost a slight, not consistent as somebody said, performance hit. Is is true that the installer cannot put a Btrfs fs on a LVM partition? I could have missed something. > > Can I ask what you are aiming to accomplish with this? There might be a > better way — virtualization or containers, perhaps. > I have a remote customer with an old server with a Rosalinux and Mes5 on top of a 2x2TB ext4 over raid. I cannot easily access the location and need to do most maintenance remotely. They could only be trusted to reboot the machine at most, or perhaps select a different boot device from the old BIOS. The old OS is failing but cannot suffer downtime. I was hoping to install two different F25's in the small 20GB partition left unraided on the second disk: /dev/sdb17. Reboot to F25. Check everything. Then do the rest of the work slowly, carefully and incrementally from remote. Slowly copying files, enlarging partitions and finally, online raiding the root partition to the other disk, and finally attaining full redundancy. With at most a single remote reboot or possible none, and no downtime. There is more, but this already can only be done _only_, I believe, with Btrfs (ZFS) RAID1 over LVM volumes. It's not crazy, I have done similar things in the past. The customer never complained. Oh, I would have preferred a more stable environment, like RedHat or CentOS, but I need a recent kernel and btrfs-tools to do this. Going for coffee, back in an hour. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:25, stan wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100 > Mayavimmer wrote: > >> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >> partition. > > That's weird. If it isn't operator error (the interface can be > confusing, especially since it is doing something complicated, and isn't > used often enough to get used to the quirks), then it sounds like a bug. > > But, the better way to do this, is to manually create the partitions > you want for the second install, rsync the original install, and fix > the /etc/fstab. A lot faster. I thought about doing it this way, but was discouraged by the additional steps like, mounting /mnt and possibly binding stuff, grub installing and mkconfigging, fiddling with alternate names in grub.cfg and wondering what happens after the first kernel update, even worse in the EFI case where I don't yet understand what is the efi directory naming convention du jour, etc - you know, all those things an installer really should do, for 4 reasons: 1. It's pretty tedious and error prone. 2. It fiddles with the ugliest area of computerdom outside of the kernel: boot stuff. 3. If you mess up you could do it with flair. 4. Many fast changing technologies are involved simultaneously, and only the upstream distro devs are in a good position to handle synchronization. > > I've run two versions of Fedora doing it this way, when I was going to > upgrade one of them to a later version or rawhide, without problem. > Never tried installing a second version, though I have successfully > installed many times with other versions of Fedora on the system. I > can't think of a reason why installing a second version would be an > issue, but you could open a bugzilla to see what the developers think. > The code is the final arbiter. I'll organize a list of repeatable failure scenarios and gotchas. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:33, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >> partition. > > Reproduce the problem, then grab the logs from /tmp while still in the > installation environment, and put them up somewhere. The likely useful > logs will be storage.log, program.log, and anaconda.log. Thanks, very useful info. Will do that. > > It is possible to have two Fedora 25's on the system at the same time, > with varying degrees of storage efficiency. The most efficient layouts > use either Btrfs or LVM thin provisioning, sharing one storage pool > for both installations (or even more than two). > > The one gotcha will be the bootloader configuration, whether UEFI or > BIOS firmware, only one Fedora bootloader exists at one time. My > preference is to make use of the GRUB configfile command to point to > another grub.cfg. Exactly how to set this up depends on whether the > firmware is UEFI or BIOS. Yes that is exactly one of the wheels I did not want to reinvent. > > > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >>> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >>> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >>> partition. >> >> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. > > I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests > for details. > > The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered > "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios > where the installer fails. More details needed! As soon as I can. I already gave some details in the other sister threads yesterday. > >> So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not >> surprised to hear it doesn't. > > It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If > you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why would it > fail? Same exact sentiment, sir. It's ok if the poor little AI in the installer can't hack complexity, but don't mess with my sacrosanct right to manually override everything. > > Of course, some users try to set up dubious/questionable environments > to begin with, such as /boot shared by multiple distributions and things > like that. Only legit hacking. Check. > > Personally, I only share /home and a couple of optional mount points. I don't even do that, unless at gunpoint (which was the case recently). I prefer separate homes with shared data partitions. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 16:15:57 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >> I have tried that very thing many times. It seems to fail in complicated >> situations. > > Such as? I have described them already a few times. I don't want to make this thread very long. I will start a new thread with exact repeatable failure scenarios, as soon as I can, so we can have a disciplined discussion about this. > > Just out of interest (and I could have spared myself this test) You could start by sparing yourself this comment, sir. I also have spent many hours on this. Because I have to. If you don't want, you are free to do anything else you like. , I've done > another F25 installation (from Workstation x86_64 live image) to a machine > that can boot F25, F24, F22 and some other distributions already. LVM, ext4 > and LUKS involved. I've asked for manual partitioning and haven't run into > any issues. Good for you. When I tried it, I ran into issues, which is why I am here asking the list for their experiences. The information you are giving me right here is no more precise and detailed than what I gave earlier. I need details! Did you UEFI or BIOS? How much free space did you have? Is that space all in a linear chunk or spread out to a piece in an LVM and another piece a raw partition, etc? Was your /boot inside or outside the LVM? Was there a preexisting Btrfs partition with some free space in it? Did you have a preexisting ext4 over LVM over Md RAID 1 install that may have confused the installer? I mentioned somewhere that on one machine _each_ install took 40 min. to finish the initial fsck! How long was yours? These are some of the problems I ran into. But you did not have any issues. Good for you. > >> And it never gives much of a diagnostic message beyond "your >> configuration cannot be implemented" or some such. I'll try to repeat >> those experiments and give details, starting tomorrow, if I can. > > *That* might lead to something. That will certainly be better than the information I can offer now. But what I have already given, plus the helpful contribution of some other users should already amount to something. > >>>> Is there a lot of censorship on this list too? >>> >>> That's an irrational comment. >> >> No, that's a question. I am new to the list and would like to know if it >> works efficiently or it is a wasteland of egos like most of the >> internet. > > That's another irrational comment. I highly recommend you don't flee into > more such off-topic comments. I recommend the same for you, sir. And I recommend you desist from making personal recommendations to any user on this list. > >> In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? > > If it makes you happy. Decide yourself. It is not a question of happiness, but of clarity. > >>> and your description so far sounds like PEBKAC. ;-) >> >> I might accept that as your own opinion if you knew the actual details, >> which I have not given yet, > > Hence my earlier requests for details. I already answered that. > >> because I would have to reinstall yet again. >> But all you know is that I have tried manual installation and failed. > > Seriously? You wrote: > > | Also note that "manual" does not seem to be very manual after all. > | In previous more complicated installs it chooses put new partitions > | in seemingly arbitrary empty spaces like LVMs. > > ??? > You are right there is a typo: add "to" after chooses: "chooses put" should be "chooses to put". Is it clear now? >> Thus your contribution so far sounds like an ad hominem. ;-) > > Talk is cheap. Look, you chose to offend a new user you don't even know just because he criticized some aspect of the product in question without having enough evidence to convict. That does not give you the right to say that the problem is me. This is a technical list for the purpose of collectively improving a great product I chose to use. Your behavior diminishes the list. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:45, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 06:39:02PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root partition. >>> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >>> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. >> I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests >> for details. > > Manual installs with multiple of the same version? I stand corrected, > then. :) > Ok, thanks, so I take it that it can be done. I'll try again then, with step by step details. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:58, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> On 01/01/2017 17:23, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >>>> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >>>> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >>>> partition. >>> >>> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >>> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. So, >>> while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not >>> surprised to hear it doesn't. >> >> I tested about 10 F25 installs yesterday, plus 2 Rosalinux R8 and 2 Mint >> 18, on an old server with 2GB RAM and a new laptop with 12GB RAM. All 3 >> OS' had to deal with previous installed versions of the same, except a >> couple of cases where I restarted from an empty disk. Only the F25's >> gave me problems on both boxes and in different independent ways. >> >> An interesting behavior, as I explained a few posts ago, happens when >> you install a second or a third F25, all in the standard LVM device >> configuration. They seem to work ok, though there no indication on the >> grub menu which one you are running. The problem appears when you >> install a new F25 with the /boot partition _inside_ the LVM container, >> which seems to work. Except, upon reboot the others are gone! > > A possible explanation for this, is this old bug. The installer > doesn't make all LV's active, therefore grub2-mkconfig won't find > them, and won't create boot entries for them. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 My new hero, Chris! I think you just found one of the gremlins that made my previous installs disappear! I knew I didn't just dream that up! Ok, I'll study this and see if I can come up with a workaround. I see there are some good reasons why this has not been solved long ago. > > However annoying that is though, about as suboptimal is the way > grub2-mkconfig makes generic boot entries for other OS's rather than > just pointing to their "native" grub.cfg using the configfile command. > This forwarding command is a vastly better workflow than the grub.cfg > of Distro X becoming responsible for Distro Y. When Distro Y gets a > kernel update, only Distro Y's grub.cfg is updated; so if you're using > a configfile forwarding workflow, you'll see that new kernel > automatically whereas if you depend on GRUB as-designed (including as > it works in Fedora), you're totally stuffed. Distro X's grub.cfg won't > reflect the change until you run grub2-mkconfig. Yes! That's the other one I kind of suspected, and always bothered me in the back of my mind. I always thought you should be able to at least provide a prefix to a config file, perhaps based on the hostname, and then rebuild grub.cfg from that. Great. Progress at last. > > > >> Also I tried my preferred configuration: Btrfs RAID1 over LVM, which >> should give the best of both worlds: awesome scrub autorepair and proper >> pooling of same disk spare partitions! The installer barks. It seems to >> think that If I want to use Btrfs as a raid fs I also have to use it as >> a volume manager. According the the Fedora info mentioned a few posts >> back this should only cost a slight, not consistent as somebody said, >> performance hit. Is is true that the installer cannot put a Btrfs fs on >> a LVM partition? I could have missed something. > > The Fedora installer will not put Btrfs on either LVM or md RAID. Another bullseye! Had I known this I would have saved time! Maybe the installer should add a line of text alerting the user to that effect, for the time being. If you advertize that you can install LVM, Vtrfs, Md and other wonderful things, you should at least, IN THE INSTALLER, warn the user. Great, thanks. > > You could use blivet-gui to get the layout you want in advance, and > the installer should recognize all of those pieces (blivet-gui and > anaconda both leverage python-blivet and libblockdev to recognize and > create storage stacks) and let you set them up as mount points. For a > pre-created Btrfs, the installer will force the creation of a new > Btrfs subvolume for the "/" mount point; otherwise it will let you > reuse existing subvolumes and file systems. Blivet-gui is supposedly > going to be integrated into the Fedora 26 installer as an advanced > partitioning option. Good to know that it's in the works! > > The installer is supposed to enforce /boo
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 21:45, JD wrote: > > > On 01/01/2017 01:01 PM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >>>>> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >>>>> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >>>>> partition. >>>> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >>>> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. >>> I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests >>> for details. >>> >>> The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered >>> "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios >>> where the installer fails. More details needed! >> As soon as I can. I already gave some details in the other sister >> threads yesterday. >> >>>> So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not >>>> surprised to hear it doesn't. >>> It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If >>> you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why >>> would it >>> fail? >> Same exact sentiment, sir. It's ok if the poor little AI in the >> installer can't hack complexity, but don't mess with my sacrosanct right >> to manually override everything. >> >>> Of course, some users try to set up dubious/questionable environments >>> to begin with, such as /boot shared by multiple distributions and things >>> like that. >> Only legit hacking. Check. >> >>> Personally, I only share /home and a couple of optional mount points. >> I don't even do that, unless at gunpoint (which was the case recently). >> I prefer separate homes with shared data partitions. > Without having done it myself, I suspect that for the 2nd installation, > grub will > make write into /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file an entry that is similar to > the entry it makes > when it detects a windows bootable partition. > > I am not certain how many bootable partitions per disk grub2 supports. Yes, Chris mentioned similar problems. I don't have a solid enough grasp of the interaction between grub and uefi/bios conventions, but I suspect something similar. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 02/01/2017 01:57, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >>>>> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >>>>> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >>>>> partition. >>>> >>>> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >>>> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. >>> >>> I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests >>> for details. >>> >>> The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered >>> "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios >>> where the installer fails. More details needed! >> >> As soon as I can. I already gave some details in the other sister >> threads yesterday. >> >>> >>>> So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not >>>> surprised to hear it doesn't. >>> >>> It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If >>> you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why would it >>> fail? >> >> Same exact sentiment, sir. It's ok if the poor little AI in the >> installer can't hack complexity, but don't mess with my sacrosanct right >> to manually override everything. > > Well you really only get a true manual override with CLI installation. > Any function in a GUI installer requires coding. Manual overrides > involve some of the most complex coding, error handling, and sanity > checks, with a very high degree of liability that I think it's not > worth any GUI installer having such capability. The most reliable > installer examples have essentially no options, and definitely nothing > that really looks like a manual override such as what Anaconda offers. > > And yet they'll do what you're asking for. > > A literal manual override for everything is highly overrated, and with > all the installer testing and bug filing I've done and looking at > myriad use cases, it's just not worth it. It'd have been easier to > just have a bunch of use case pop-ups for automatic partitioning > presets. I agree. I did not literally mean that you should have a gui and the logic behind it to specify every existing option. I was merely exaggerating a bit to drive home the point that I feel more manual control is needed. I think the sweet spot goes something like this: have a couple of fully automatic use cases covered, but then if you go outside them disable the smart decision making -- just put any fs type on any block device, even if considered stupid (/boot inside LVM, Btrfs over LVM, root too small, stop fscking my 2TB drives, etc), chastising the user with a warning, at most. It feels like we have two modes now: full-auto and semi-auto, where I prefer full-auto and manual. > > > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 02/01/2017 02:10, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM, JD wrote:
>>
>> Without having done it myself, I suspect that for the 2nd installation, grub
>> will
>> make write into /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file an entry that is similar to the
>> entry it makes
>> when it detects a windows bootable partition.
>
> On BIOS firmware computers, yes. And it's the 2nd installation GRUB
> that "owns" the drive. It is this grub.cfg whose generic entries
> should be replaced using configfile to point to the 1st installations
> grub.cfg. This is much more maintainable and compatible.
>
> On UEFI firmware, there is only one fedora bootloader and grub.cfg, so
> the 2nd installation will overwrite the 1st. I would modify the
> installation so that each has its own grub.cfg found at /boot/grub2
> just like it's a BIOS setup (and is supported by upstream GRUB as they
> do it this way by default, I'm baffled why Fedora does this
> differently). And then create a minimalist grub.cfg on the efi system
> partition that points to the two installation specific grub.cfgs by
> using configfile command.
Eminently reasonable.
And while we are waiting for that, I would ask: why the UEFI overwrite
pain? Can we add these 3 lines of pseudocode?
if thisBox.alreadyHas( anotherFedora ) and isUEFI:
showDialog("Sorry, cannot currently add a second Fedora")
exit(0)
>
>> I am not certain how many bootable partitions per disk grub2 supports.
>
> A lot. It's limited by GRUB's ability to ennumerate, i.e. hdXmsdosY,
> where the practical limit of Y is maybe something like 128. It
> supports loading the kernel+initramfs on almost everything: md raid5
> degraded; LVM, primary or extended MBR partitions, LUKs encrypted
> volumes, Btrfs, ZFS, it's quite impressive what it can do. What
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 02/01/2017 02:55, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Mayavimmer wrote:
>> On 02/01/2017 02:10, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM, JD wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Without having done it myself, I suspect that for the 2nd installation,
>>>> grub
>>>> will
>>>> make write into /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file an entry that is similar to the
>>>> entry it makes
>>>> when it detects a windows bootable partition.
>>>
>>> On BIOS firmware computers, yes. And it's the 2nd installation GRUB
>>> that "owns" the drive. It is this grub.cfg whose generic entries
>>> should be replaced using configfile to point to the 1st installations
>>> grub.cfg. This is much more maintainable and compatible.
>>>
>>> On UEFI firmware, there is only one fedora bootloader and grub.cfg, so
>>> the 2nd installation will overwrite the 1st. I would modify the
>>> installation so that each has its own grub.cfg found at /boot/grub2
>>> just like it's a BIOS setup (and is supported by upstream GRUB as they
>>> do it this way by default, I'm baffled why Fedora does this
>>> differently). And then create a minimalist grub.cfg on the efi system
>>> partition that points to the two installation specific grub.cfgs by
>>> using configfile command.
>>
>> Eminently reasonable.
>>
>> And while we are waiting for that, I would ask: why the UEFI overwrite
>> pain? Can we add these 3 lines of pseudocode?
>>
>> if thisBox.alreadyHas( anotherFedora ) and isUEFI:
>> showDialog("Sorry, cannot currently add a second Fedora")
>> exit(0)
>
> Because that code by itself would prevent replacing an existing Fedora
> (of any release version).
Ok, right. Then we could get the best of both worlds, in keeping with
the Hippocratic Oath to at least do no harm, by dropping the exit() in
this two line pseudocode:
if thisBox.alreadyHas( anotherFedora ) and isUEFI:
showDialog("WARNING: you already have a Fedora installation\n"
"If you continue it will be OVERWRITTEN!")
...or "will be rendered inaccessible", until your suggestions not
implemented or some progress is made. Right now people who have not read
this thread risk losing their data.
So now you need a dialog that tells the user
> they need to first remove the existing Fedora to install a new Fedora.
> And while that is arguably a less trouble UX, it thwarts the dual
> Fedora user case where the user has the ability to hack up the
> bootloader but doesn't want to screw around with the gory details of
> OS installation.
Ok, I would not mind going outside the installer to get multiple Fedoras
on my machine. Perhaps we should set up a temporary very informal guide
on how to do that.
Is there a wiki like service associated with this list where we could
gather the wisdom accumulated so far? Tests done, machines used,
configurations, workarounds, repeatable scenarios, faqs, howtos, hearsay?
>
> This use case isn't that difficult to support if there were other
> changes made to simplify installation and bootloading in general,
> while also standardizing bootloading. macOS and Windows manage to do
> this today and their installers are completely brain dead stupid.
It's easier for them because they control their equivalent upstream
grubs and everything else. Besides the money.
So
> it doesn't take a complicated installer to do the things people *need*
> to do. It takes a complicated installer to do the things people want
> to do but could be met some other way but they don't want to do it
> that way because it's not their way and get all pissy if the installer
> isn't justifying their way with direct support. I still advocate
> ripping out all of the custom partitioning UI... and I'm not a fan of
> making the installer ass tons more complicated by inserting blivet-gui
> into it. Just run that tool from outside the installer if desired,
> cluttering up the installer just makes it more unwieldy...
I am ok with that for the kind of work I do, but I understand the
average Joe would not like it. You could argue Joe should run Mint instead.
>
> When billion dollar companies have rock solid installers that only
> support the 80% use case with essentially zero bugs and user
> complaints about lack of function; compared to installers that try to
> disproportionately appease the other 20% use cases with constant
> regressions, it makes me think of project failure.
>
Agreed.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 02/01/2017 16:23, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:49:35 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >>> Just out of interest (and I could have spared myself this test) >> >> You could start by sparing yourself this comment, sir. > > You may want to revisit the subject you've chosen: > > Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine? > > What answer did you hope for? A definite "yes" or "no"? Or "it depends". > Sure. I could have ignored the entire thread, but I've chosen to comment > on this thread, because to the best of my knowledge, the installer doesn't > care whether an existing installation of F25 is found. Failure reasons > may be completely independent of whether you're trying to install a second > F25 or F26 or RHEL or even another distribution that would not be happy about > what target partitions you point it at or what is left to work with. You > really need to narrow down the target environment and installation scenario. > >> , I've done >>> another F25 installation (from Workstation x86_64 live image) to a machine >>> that can boot F25, F24, F22 and some other distributions already. LVM, ext4 >>> and LUKS involved. I've asked for manual partitioning and haven't run into >>> any issues. >> >> Good for you. When I tried it, I ran into issues, which is why I am here >> asking the list for their experiences. The information you are giving me >> right here is no more precise and detailed than what I gave earlier. > > Of course not. I haven't run into any issues. Not this time, and not the > many times I've done installations like that before with varying > configurations since the Second World War. The much more interesting case > is the failure case. Your failure case, and your installation scenario. > Hence the initial questions about what steps _you_ have tried. > >> How much free space did you have? > > Irrelevant for this case. All that matters is what you have tried and > whether you've reused/reformatted existing partitions, whether you've > tried to allocate something from free space manually or automatically. > Details like that. > >> I mentioned somewhere that on one machine >> _each_ install took 40 min. to finish the initial fsck! How long was >> yours? > > Not noticable. There is no huge storage fs available to this machine > directly, and accessing the local LUKS storage didn't involve any > annoying delay. > > FWIW, I am also not in the know with regard to any forced fsck the current > installer version may run, and as much as you seem to like throwing in > irrelevant issues you consider "awkward", it isn't helpful in this case. > The fsck is an entirely different issue. > >> These are some of the problems I ran into. But you did not have >> any issues. Good for you. > > Which is not why I've pointed that out. > > Nobody (me included) doubts that you're facing problems with whatever > you're trying to do with the installer and your machine's storage > configuration. Nevertheless, it's you who needs to find the culprit > or collect enough data and logs for installer developers to take a look > at. If you came to bugzilla with empty hands, it would not be any > different. > >>>>>> Is there a lot of censorship on this list too? >>>>> >>>>> That's an irrational comment. >>>> >>>> No, that's a question. I am new to the list and would like to know if it >>>> works efficiently or it is a wasteland of egos like most of the >>>> internet. >>> >>> That's another irrational comment. I highly recommend you don't flee into >>> more such off-topic comments. >> >> I recommend the same for you, sir. > > My questions about $subject have not been off-topic. > >> And I recommend you desist from >> making personal recommendations to any user on this list. > > Can't do that, won't do that. You are new to this list, and still you > don't make your own experience on this list, but mention your bad > experience made in other places. It _is_ irrational to start rambling > about "censorship" and "wasteland of egos like most of the internet", > and it doesn't help you with your installation problem at all. > >>>> because I would have to reinstall yet again. >>>> But all you know is that I have tried manual installation and failed. >>> >>> Seriously? You wrote: >>> >>>
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 03/01/2017 14:33, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 00:02:42 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >> demonstrated. I am here on this technical list to solve problems for my >> customers and you are here to play games. Please cease and desist from >> making personal remarks about me or I will complain to the moderator. > > That is another irrational comment and doesn't threaten me. Complain to > the moderator, if it makes you happy. > > It would be more productive to gather some details about the installation > scenario and figure out what steps are necessary to reproduce a problem. What > I've pointed out in the previous mail has not been wrong. I will continue to > raise questions and add comments as long as this thread remains public, but > that doesn't mean I reply to every email. Obviously. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > You can do whatever you want. Except making personal comments about me. Like you just did again. Next one I will complain to the moderator. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
F29 virtualbox installs wrong kernel-devel
When dnf installing virtualbox it installed: kernel-devel-4.20.14-200.fc29.x86_64 ...but my kernel is: kernel-core-4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64 So naturally virtualbox crashes with: $ LANG=C virtualbox WARNING: The vboxdrv kernel module is not loaded. Either there is no module available for the current kernel (4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64) or it failed to load. Please try load the kernel module by executing as root dnf install akmod-VirtualBox kernel-devel-4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64 akmods --kernels 4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64 && systemctl restart systemd-modules-load.service You will not be able to start VMs until this problem is fixed. The 4.20.13 devel package seems missing: # LANG=C dnf install akmod-VirtualBox kernel-devel-4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64 Last metadata expiration check: 0:38:24 ago on Wed Mar 13 01:01:29 2019. Package akmod-VirtualBox-5.2.24-1.fc29.x86_64 is already installed. No match for argument: kernel-devel-4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64 Error: Unable to find a match ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F29 virtualbox installs wrong kernel-devel
RESOLVED! > did you try to update your kernel or do a general update? > dnf update kernel > or dnf update > or a downgrade of kernel-devel? > dnf downgrade kernel-devel The system was fully updated at the time (6 hours ago). Now the rest of the kernel*4.10.14* rpms are available and I just updated wih no problems. Virtualbox now works. All's well that ends well. I guess. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sync rpms with other computer
How do I sync rpm packages with another computer? I have a list of the remote's rpms generated with "rpm -qa". I expect to have to modify a couple of packages in the list due to hardware dependent rpms like xorg. Otherwise it should be a simple matter of downloading the rpms from the edited list and then installing them. Or is there already a script for this? ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Sync rpms with other computer
On 26/11/20 03:02, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 11/25/20 2:58 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> How do I sync rpm packages with another computer? >> I have a list of the remote's rpms generated with "rpm -qa". >> I expect to have to modify a couple of packages in the list due to >> hardware dependent rpms like xorg. >> Otherwise it should be a simple matter of downloading the rpms from the >> edited list and then installing them. >> Or is there already a script for this? > > dnf install $(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Sync rpms with other computer
On 26/11/20 08:31, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2020 at 11:58, Mayavimmer wrote:
>
>> How do I sync rpm packages with another computer?
>> I have a list of the remote's rpms generated with "rpm -qa".
>> I expect to have to modify a couple of packages in the list due to
>> hardware dependent rpms like xorg.
>> Otherwise it should be a simple matter of downloading the rpms from the
>> edited list and then installing them.
>> Or is there already a script for this?
>
> Rather than a using rpm -qa list, I use
> rpm --qf "%{NAME}.%{ARCH}\n" -qa
>
> I use a script listrpm to make a listing
> #!/usr/bin/bash
> rpm --qf "%{NAME}.%{ARCH}\n" -qa | sort | grep -v gpg-pubkey >
> installed_pkgs"$(date +%F)".txt
>
> Then you can copy the file, and run dnf install with that piped into it.
> Also, do this if I create a machine with a clean install of an OS, and then
> want to add the missing packages. Sometimes get errors on packages that
> might no longer be available, but then just delete those lines from file.
>
> Good Luck.
Ah, good idea to exclude gpg-pubkey.
Why only use NAME and ARCH?
Anyway, summary of interesting points, so far:
* There is probably no ready made script, then write one.
* Let's call the two hosts Master and Clone.
* Should probably install Master-only packages first, then remove
Clone-only ones.
* Clone the Master repo configuration, possibly removing Clone-only repos?
But could have problems removing rpms!
And may not want redundant repos??
Maybe solve this problem by inverting the order like this:
1. Remove Clone-only rpms (ugh, could remove too much!)
2. Zero Clone repo config and replace with Master repo config
3. Install
* Prepare rpmlist for easy parsing, maybe use the tilde char:
rpm -qa --qf="%{NAME}-%{EVR}.%{ARCH}\n" # almost same as rpm -qa
rpm -qa --qf="%{NAME}~%{EVR}~%{ARCH}\n" # almost same as rpm -qa
* Identify special rpms to exclude from cloning:
*-gpg-pubkey-*
Some xorg rpm tied to a non default graphics card
Other rpms that were installed non from repo in Master
* What to do when downgrading some rpms??
* Ok, here is a first attempt at the install-first-then-remove case:
1. Ensure Clone repo config is the same Master's.
2. Master # rpm -qa --qf="%{NAME}~%{EVR}~%{ARCH}\n"
| sort | grep -v gpg-pubkey > master-rpms
# Note: still not exactly the same as rpm -qa
3. Clone # rpm -qa --qf="%{NAME}~%{EVR}~%{ARCH}\n"
| sort | grep -v gpg-pubkey > clone-rpms
4. Compare the two lists in various ways, using tilde fields.
4. Edit master-rpms to eliminate unwanted rpms.
5. Clone # dnf install $( clone-rpms
7. Clone # vimdiff edited-master-rpms clone-rpms
8. Repeat until all differences are sorted out
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange lines in message log when running firefox??
On 05/11/23 00:44, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: Nov 5 09:39:17 x /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[123970]: [Parent 123970, Main Thread] WARNING: Failed to call GetIdletime(): GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.ServiceUnknown: The name is not activatable Nov 5 09:39:17 x /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[123970]: : 'glib warning', file /builddir/build/BUILD/firefox-119.0/toolkit/xre/nsSigHandlers.cpp:167 Nov 5 09:39:17 x firefox[123970]: Failed to call GetIdletime(): GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.ServiceUnknown: The name is not activatable ++ Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired) mailto:mi...@guam.net mailto:msetze...@gmail.com Guam - Where America's Day Begins G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ ++ ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue I get the same on my up to date F38 KDE (HOST.NAME redacted): nov 06 13:13:58 HOST.NAME plasmashell[2774]: [Parent 2774, Main Thread] WARNING: Failed to call GetIdletime(): GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.ServiceUnknown: The name is not activatable nov 06 13:13:58 HOST.NAME plasmashell[2774]: : 'glib warning', file /builddir/build/BUILD/firefox-119.0/toolkit/xre/nsSigHandlers.cpp:167 nov 06 13:13:58 HOST.NAME firefox[2774]: Failed to call GetIdletime(): GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.ServiceUnknown: The name is not activatable It repeats every 5 seconds! ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Very minor but very weird
On 12/10/2017 19:56, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > In the command interpreter (shell) the underline character > (underline_char) generally but not always echos as a space when actually > typed and generally but not always displays as an underline when > produced by the system. For example: > (1) $ echo underline_char > (2) underline_char > the underline echos as a space when actually typed on line (1) but then > changes to an underline when I hit return and line (2) appears. Line (2) > displays properly. > > System: > 4 processor true-intel CPUs > Fedora-26 with all upgrades > Konsole (KDE) version Version 17.04.1 > > What's going on? How can it be fixed? I first saw this a couple years ago, in a different distro, and noticed that changing character size (try Ctrl_+ or Ctrl_- in Konsole) made it go away. It's probably a Konsole problem. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Very minor but very weird
On 13/10/2017 10:46, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 10/13/17 15:29, Joachim Backes wrote: >> On 10/13/17 09:03, Mayavimmer wrote: >>> On 12/10/2017 19:56, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: >>>> In the command interpreter (shell) the underline character >>>> (underline_char) generally but not always echos as a space when actually >>>> typed and generally but not always displays as an underline when >>>> produced by the system. For example: >>>> (1) $ echo underline_char >>>> (2) underline_char >>>> the underline echos as a space when actually typed on line (1) but then >>>> changes to an underline when I hit return and line (2) appears. Line (2) >>>> displays properly. >>>> >>>> System: >>>> 4 processor true-intel CPUs >>>> Fedora-26 with all upgrades >>>> Konsole (KDE) version Version 17.04.1 >>>> >>>> What's going on? How can it be fixed? >>> >>> I first saw this a couple years ago, in a different distro, and noticed >>> that changing character size (try Ctrl_+ or Ctrl_- in Konsole) made it >>> go away. It's probably a Konsole problem. >>> >> >> Seeing this not in gnome (gnome-terminal), and not on the virtual terminals >> (ctrl >> alt F1,...). > > FWIW, I can duplicate this behavior in gnome-terminal. All I need to do is > Edit the > Profile Preferences and pick "Custom font" and Monospace Regular with a size > greater > than 13. Hmmm. Also, if I recall, I experienced these three strange phenomena: 1. Some color combinations were worse, intermittently. I think the yellow text on black background was the worst. Switching to a different tab and back to the first one again would sometimes clear the problem. 2. Sometimes, upon scrolling the text in Konsole, and even scrolling up and then down again in vim, it would superimpose an entire, screen wide underline upon a line of text. And at times even two. 3. Much more rarely I would even see some character overstriking with different letters, but slightly offset up or down but a pixel or two. I quit investigating because I now get the correct representation 99% (NOT 100, sigh) of the time. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: VLC and screen saver
Robin Lee wrote: > Thanks for letting me know I'm not the only one. > > Also been launching VLC from a terminal lately and sometimes it also > doesn't terminate cleanly that way. I close the VLC window, it > disappears from system panel, but in the terminal window the prompt is > not returned. Ctrl-c returns the prompt and VLC doesn't show up anymore > in system monitor. I also experienced the same and more recent Vlc weirdness. I fixed it by removing the config file with: $ mv ~/.config/vlc ~/.config/vlc--00--maybe-broken If you don't need the old config, try it. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
