On 10/23/24 11:54, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 03:33 -0700, ToddAndMargo via test wrote:
fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch was not removed (had a
duplicate of 41) by the upgrade. This caused dnf to
think I was still on 39 and why all the 39 packages
remained
Duplicate packa
On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 03:33 -0700, ToddAndMargo via test wrote:
>
> fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch was not removed (had a
> duplicate of 41) by the upgrade. This caused dnf to
> think I was still on 39 and why all the 39 packages
> remained
Duplicate packages (other than a handful that are i
On 10/22/24 7:48 AM, Scott Dowdle via test wrote:
On Monday, October 21st, 2024 at 5:00 PM, ToddAndMargo via test
wrote:
Hi All,
I do not know if this is the correct place for
this, but ...
Now this is weird. Really, Really WEIRD!
Yesterday I did the offline upgrade from FC39 to FC41 Beta
On Monday, October 21st, 2024 at 5:00 PM, ToddAndMargo via test
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I do not know if this is the correct place for
> this, but ...
>
> Now this is weird. Really, Really WEIRD!
>
> Yesterday I did the offline upgrade from FC39 to FC41 Beta.
>
> Now a fresh "# dnf upgrade" wa
On 10/21/24 16:00, ToddAndMargo via test wrote:
Hi All,
I do not know if this is the correct place for
this, but ...
Now this is weird. Really, Really WEIRD!
Yesterday I did the offline upgrade from FC39 to FC41 Beta.
Now a fresh "# dnf upgrade" wants to download 3000+ FC39
rpm's.
And "rpm
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 07:46:12 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> It is necessary, or otherwise rpm doesn't know that an upgrade
> requires the old package to be uninstalled first. It will do it out of
> order and fail like the original poster stated.
Originally, it would be avoided with explicit
Require
On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 7:46 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 7:39 AM Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 12:55:08 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> >
> > > Having a problem when upgrading an installed F41:
> > > ...
> > > sudo dnf upgrade
> > >
> > > Breaks with:
> > >
On 06.10.24 13:39, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 12:55:08 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
Having a problem when upgrading an installed F41:
...
sudo dnf upgrade
Breaks with:
transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
- file /usr/lib64/libtesseract.so.5.4.1 from install of
te
On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 7:39 AM Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 12:55:08 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
>
> > Having a problem when upgrading an installed F41:
> > ...
> > sudo dnf upgrade
> >
> > Breaks with:
> >
> > transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
> >- file /usr/lib64
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 12:55:08 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> Having a problem when upgrading an installed F41:
> ...
> sudo dnf upgrade
>
> Breaks with:
>
> transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
> - file /usr/lib64/libtesseract.so.5.4.1 from install of
> tesseract-libs-5.4.1-4.fc41.x86_6
I filled a gnome bugreport:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/nautilus/-/issues/3581
--
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproj
That was the problem. I enabled the testing repo and the upgrade process
finished successfully. Thank you
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
ht
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:12 PM RS wrote:
> When trying to upgrade to Fedora 37 Beta with the system-upgrade Plugin
> like so:
>
> sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=37
>
> I get the following error:
>
> Error: Transaction test error:
> file /usr/bin/WebKitWebDriver from install of
I tried the suggested additional arguments but it didn´t change the output.
Maybe it is helpful to add that the testing machine uses the updates-testing
repository like so:
dnf update --enablerepo=updates-testing
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fed
Hello,
have you fully updated your system before trying to perform the upgrade?
The recommended workflow is:
1. dnf update --refresh
2. dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=37
You might want to use the following arguments with the second command that
will remove conflicting packages a
On Saturday, May 21, 2022 2:34:53 AM EDT Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 2022-05-20 15:23, Garry T. Williams wrote:
> > Anyone know what I managed to mess up here?
> >
> > Update using updates-testing gives this error:
> >
> > Error: Transaction test error:
> >file /usr/share/config.kcfg/specialmailc
On Fri, 20 May 2022 23:34:53 -0700
Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 2022-05-20 15:23, Garry T. Williams wrote:
> > Anyone know what I managed to mess up here?
> >
> > Update using updates-testing gives this error:
> >
> > Error: Transaction test error:
> >file /usr/share/config.kcfg/specialmailcolle
On 2022-05-20 15:23, Garry T. Williams wrote:
Anyone know what I managed to mess up here?
Update using updates-testing gives this error:
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/share/config.kcfg/specialmailcollections.kcfg from install of
kf5-akonadi-mime-22.04.1-1.fc36.x86_64 conflicts wi
On 10/27/19 1:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Filing a new bug wouldn't hurt, for sure. Thanks. Probably against dnf-
plugins-extras .
Apparently it has already been done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764169
--
The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.
__
On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 08:15 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 10/20/19 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 06:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > > On 10/18/19 2:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > > > On 10/18/19 2:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > > I might need more logs from your ca
On 10/20/19 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 06:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 10/18/19 2:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 10/18/19 2:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I might need more logs from your case to be sure of what's going on -
if you could put the dnf logs and system jo
On 10/20/19 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 06:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 10/18/19 2:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 10/18/19 2:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I might need more logs from your case to be sure of what's going on -
if you could put the dnf logs and system jo
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 06:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 10/18/19 2:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > On 10/18/19 2:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > I might need more logs from your case to be sure of what's going on -
> > > if you could put the dnf logs and system journals up somewhere it'd
> > > h
On 10/18/19 2:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 10/18/19 2:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I might need more logs from your case to be sure of what's going on -
if you could put the dnf logs and system journals up somewhere it'd
help. Also, did you re-run the download phase after updating the
system-upg
On 10/18/19 2:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I might need more logs from your case to be sure of what's going on -
if you could put the dnf logs and system journals up somewhere it'd
help. Also, did you re-run the download phase after updating the
system-upgrade plugin? You do need to do that...
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 18:12 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 10/17/19 5:08 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > On 10/18/19 7:49 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > > That is the symptom of the problem. Did you get the updated plugin?
> > > One thing I wondered is what would happen if you manually added the
> > > "mi
On 10/18/19 7:49 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
One very odd thing here though is that it's looking for fc30 packages. Maybe there is an rpmfusion problem as well since there is no appstream data past 30 yet.
Oh, BTW, it is in the 31 repo of rpmfusion it is just not updated in name
[root@f31bg ~]#
On 10/17/19 5:08 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 10/18/19 7:49 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
That is the symptom of the problem. Did you get the updated plugin?
One thing I wondered is what would happen if you manually added the
"missing" rpms to the cache directory after the regular download
process was c
On 10/18/19 7:49 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 10/17/19 4:16 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Almost there But the problem may not be a "fedora" problem?
2019-10-17T23:09:44Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum:
/var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/rpmfusion-free-058b175644bc1430/packages/rpmfusion-free-app
On 10/17/19 4:16 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Almost there But the problem may not be a "fedora" problem?
2019-10-17T23:09:44Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum:
/var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/rpmfusion-free-058b175644bc1430/packages/rpmfusion-free-appstream-data-30-1.20181021.fc30.noarch.rpm
On 10/18/19 4:41 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 10:17 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 10/17/19 2:15 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
The issue seems to be related to
2019-10-16T23:34:50Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum:
/var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packa
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 10:17 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 10/17/19 2:15 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > The issue seems to be related to
> >
> > 2019-10-16T23:34:50Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum:
> > /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/plasma-desktop-5.16.5-1.f
On 10/17/19 2:15 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
The issue seems to be related to
2019-10-16T23:34:50Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum:
/var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/plasma-desktop-5.16.5-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
There was a recent discussion about this issue and a
Ed Greshko composed on 2019-10-17 17:58 (UTC+0800):
> FWIW, I'm using
> dnf --skip-broken --allowerasing system-upgrade download --releasever=31
> I suppose it is possible I'm hitting a bad mirror?
This may be the same problem my last few tries to upgrade. I removed kde*, kf5*
and plasm*, upgr
On 10/17/19 5:58 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 10/17/19 5:15 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Thanks Thrown a bit since dnf.log times are Z tagged.
The issue seems to be related to
2019-10-16T23:34:50Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum:
/var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/pac
On 10/17/19 5:15 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Thanks Thrown a bit since dnf.log times are Z tagged.
The issue seems to be related to
2019-10-16T23:34:50Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum:
/var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/plasma-desktop-5.16.5-1.fc31.x86_6
On 10/17/19 2:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 07:52 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
This is the first time I've had issues with an upgrade.
Laptop is a fully updated F30 system running only KDE desktop. It is an older
Acer Aspire 5920.
The package are downloaded and upon "system
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 07:52 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> This is the first time I've had issues with an upgrade.
>
> Laptop is a fully updated F30 system running only KDE desktop. It is an
> older Acer Aspire 5920.
>
> The package are downloaded and upon "system-upgrade reboot" the system does
>
TB BUG report is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458510 and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443291
can't test TB Bug with live image (booted from USB and DVD) cause of a
"readonly" filesystem error !
I guess this is the culprit:
/dev/mapper/live-rw on / ext4 (ro, .
On Sat, 2017-06-03 at 18:11 +, sixpack13 wrote:
> hallo
>
> just a short upgrade report (F25 => F26, 2 Intel only boxes: DH77KC, NUC
> D34010WYKH) via dnf.
>
> Upgrade without any (big) trouble.
> One bug in thunderbird: popup boxes are "missing". workaround: click on the
> box fringe !
>
On 09/23/2014 09:23 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-23 at 08:49 -0600, Trever L. Adams wrote:
>> I originally posted this to the Fedora users list. Someone suggested I
>> post it here. Additionally, squid TPROXY support isn't working
>> (reported) and krb-auth-dialog segfaults (not yet
On Tue, 2014-09-23 at 08:49 -0600, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> I originally posted this to the Fedora users list. Someone suggested I
> post it here. Additionally, squid TPROXY support isn't working
> (reported) and krb-auth-dialog segfaults (not yet reported.
>
> The message:
>
> This morning I upg
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> It's very unusual for issues with completely different generations of
> adapter to be the same, as so much of the code to support different
> adapters is...different. It's almost out of the realm of possibility
> that there's a bug that affects your adapte
On 06/03/13 02:53 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
On 06/03/13 01:10 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
(Current Rawhide kernels die as soon as modesetting kicks in, for me, on
a Geforce 9600 GT. I need to get around to triaging it.)
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> On 06/03/13 01:10 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> >
> >> (Current Rawhide kernels die as soon as modesetting kicks in, for me, on
> >> a Geforce 9600 GT. I need to get around to triaging it.)
> >
> > Is what you're talking
On 06/03/13 01:10 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
(Current Rawhide kernels die as soon as modesetting kicks in, for me, on
a Geforce 9600 GT. I need to get around to triaging it.)
Is what you're talking about anything like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cg
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> (Current Rawhide kernels die as soon as modesetting kicks in, for me, on
> a Geforce 9600 GT. I need to get around to triaging it.)
Is what you're talking about anything like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901816 ? I've been having that
problem
On 04/03/13 08:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 21:14:36 -0500
Shalom Ben-Zvi wrote:
OK
I didn't use yum with *--nogpgcheck* and probably that's why I
didn't have the expected results.
Possibly. If you re-run the distro-sync with --nogpgcheck does it
change anything?
I did it
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 21:23:23 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 21:14:36 -0500
> Shalom Ben-Zvi wrote:
>
> > OK
> > I didn't use yum with *--nogpgcheck* and probably that's why I
> > didn't have the expected results.
>
> Possibly. If you re-run the distro-sync with --nogpgcheck does
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 21:14:36 -0500
Shalom Ben-Zvi wrote:
> OK
> I didn't use yum with *--nogpgcheck* and probably that's why I
> didn't have the expected results.
Possibly. If you re-run the distro-sync with --nogpgcheck does it
change anything?
> I did it correctly now and I have the rawhide r
OK
I didn't use yum with *--nogpgcheck* and probably that's why I didn't have
the expected results.
I did it correctly now and I have the rawhide repo , updated and all went
fine.
only now I can't boot,
Its a uefi installation, secore boot disabled.
I restarted after the yum --releasever=rawhide
On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:55:23 +0200, shalom9...@gmail.com wrote:
> I did:
> # yum --releasever=rawhide install fedora-release-rawhide
> # yum --releasever=rawhide distro-sync
> I compared the yum.repos.d folder to the original before the update and
> nothing changed there, like my repos are still
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:34:19 -0600
Francisco Vazquez wrote:
> Hello I just upgraded from 17 to 18 using fedup via network and
> everything went smooth, but when attempting to the last message I
> get to "loading from ramdisk ... " message but never get to load
> the new version.
yum update ker
On 23/10/12 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 22:20 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
Seeing all the "obsolete" upgrade tests for Fedora 17 to 18
and having looked at
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/946
Will Fedora 17 be fedup with F18?
Will beta be yummy?
I'm still hoping w
On 10/23/2012 09:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm still hoping we can hold the Beta until fedup is working acceptably,
but some people are getting itchy feet since we've delayed the freeze
twice already. FESCo is still discussing it in that very ticket.
Delaying the release is better then deli
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 22:20 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Seeing all the "obsolete" upgrade tests for Fedora 17 to 18
>
> and having looked at
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/946
>
> Will Fedora 17 be fedup with F18?
> Will beta be yummy?
I'm still hoping we can hold the Beta until fedup
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 22:09 -0400, Thomas Belvin wrote:
> I just upgraded from F14 updates-testing to Rawhide and got these
> errors/warnings in yum.
> Are any of these critical?
At a glance, doesn't look like it.
> Installing : libgnomekbd-2.91.1-2.fc15.i686
> 536/180
57 matches
Mail list logo
