On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> There is another option: ``dnf remove --duplicated``
Basically it's an alias to command mentioned before, but anyhow it
doesn't exist in F25.
>
> Jaroslav
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:44 PM, stan wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:23:53 -
There is another option: ``dnf remove --duplicated``
Jaroslav
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:44 PM, stan wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:23:53 -0700
> stan wrote:
>
>
> > dnf remove $(dnf repoquery --installonly --latest-limit -3 -q)
>
> This is wrong! I copied the wrong line. The actual command s
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:23:53 -0700
stan wrote:
> dnf remove $(dnf repoquery --installonly --latest-limit -3 -q)
This is wrong! I copied the wrong line. The actual command should be
dnf remove $(dnf repoquery --duplicated --latest-limit -1 -q)
___
de
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:07:56 -
Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
> Reinstall or any other dnf operation except remove doesn't work,
> didn't try --rebuilddb. There are many cases of such broken state on
> forums, but system is usually working fine AFAICT. Is there a way to
> alter rpm database to rem
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
>
> Could be lots of reasons. An x86_64 and i686 library installed
> simultaneously can appear confusingly as duplicate libraries if you
> don't ask rpm to report architecture. A system interruption during the
> update can block rpm from
Oh, I see, thanks. I remember a couple of years ago that Fedora
installed 32-bits stuff by itself and I ended with a messed system, but
I guess that was a bug.
Thank you!
Sylvia
On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 14:46 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Sylvia wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Sylvia wrote:
> This is maybe a silly question but... if you're architecture is, let's say
> x86_64, why would anything install an i686 version of the same package?
If you install a 32-bit program, it may pull in other i686
dependencies. See what happens if you t
Hello,
This is maybe a silly question but... if you're architecture is, let's
say x86_64, why would anything install an i686 version of the same
package?
Cheers,
Sylvia
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 06:15 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >
> Could be lots of reasons. An x86_64 and i686 library inst
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
wrote:
> Hello,
> A user posted some issue on gnutls [0], and it turned out that after a
> fresh install of f24 that user had two versions of the library
> installed. I have no idea why this can be or whether that should be
> expected from
Hello,
A user posted some issue on gnutls [0], and it turned out that after a
fresh install of f24 that user had two versions of the library
installed. I have no idea why this can be or whether that should be
expected from the installer/updater. Any insights?
regards,
Nikos
[0]. https://bugzilla
10 matches
Mail list logo
