argument "repomanage" for command "dnf5". Add "--help" for
more information about the arguments.
It could be a command provided by a plugin, try: dnf5 install
'dnf5-command(repomanage)'
Temporary repodata directory Packages/.repodata/ already exists!
(Another
First background. I will get to my point. Please be patient.
DNF5 has a long standing bug which is partially described in:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172868
and in Issue 570 on GitHub.
The bug still exists and seems to be effecting DNF5 operations where there
is a need to
Am 11.10.24 um 5:37 AM schrieb Sumantro Mukherjee:
Hey Robert,
Thank you for reaching out.
The repomanage was supposed to be developed as plugin and it has been
slated in some later version.
This means once you upgrade to F41; this won't work.
What are people supposed to use instead?
I hav
week for the upgrade[1]; post the feedback you have
after the upgrade and
also note that repomanage isn't working.
[0] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/943
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2024-10-11_F41_Upgrade_Test_Day
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 8:57 AM Robe
replaces dnf repomanage in the dnf5 system in fc42?
--
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of
-
>
> After the latest system update get the message
>
> Unknown argument "repomanage" for command "dnf5". Add "--help" for
> more
> information about the arguments.
Searching, it seems to me, you need report upstream i.e.
https://github.com/r
Keep a local repository of system rpms using the commands on fc41
QEMU/KVM virtual machine.
---
dnf repomanage --old . |xargs rm -rf
cd ../
createrepo_c --update -c cachedir Packages
---
After the latest system update get the message
Unknown argument "repomanage" for command &
This is a nice ask. Please report this finding in the ongoing test week[0]
I will be adding it to my test day retrospective for DNF5 after the test
week is over
given there is no exact answer. I hope that helps :)
[0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2023-08-11_Fedora_39_DNF_5
On Sat, Aug
On 8/1/23 09:55, Ian Laurie wrote:
In DNF5 how do you do this DNF4 style command?
sudo dnf remove --oldinstallonly
I'm guessing there must be a way but it's eluding me so far.
Does anyone know if this functionality will be added to DNF5 at some point?
--
Ian Laurie
FAS: nix
On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 01:46 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 8/9/23 00:57, Onyeibo wrote:
> > I ran an update on a second rawhide machine of mine (DNF5 broke the
> > other one and I have not reinstalled Fedora there). After this last
> > update, I get the following behaviour w
On 8/9/23 00:57, Onyeibo wrote:
I ran an update on a second rawhide machine of mine (DNF5 broke the
other one and I have not reinstalled Fedora there). After this last
update, I get the following behaviour when I attempt another update:
# dnf update
bash: /usr/bin/dnf: No such file or directory
Hey!
Yeah and Fedora 39 Branched/Alpha has reverted to dnf4 as dnf5 is
delayed until later Fedora 41 as it seems now:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/No-DNF5-Fedora-39 so not released until
end of 2024 as that status looks now
Den ons 9 aug. 2023 kl 09:55 skrev Onyeibo :
>
> Good Morning
>
Good Morning
I ran an update on a second rawhide machine of mine (DNF5 broke the
other one and I have not reinstalled Fedora there). After this last
update, I get the following behaviour when I attempt another update:
# dnf update
bash: /usr/bin/dnf: No such file or directory
What I find most
In my testing it seems like DNF5 is clearing out any characters typed at
the console before it exits.
DNF4 certainly did not do this. I often typed other commands while DNF4
was doing its thing, and they executed when DNF4 finished.
Is this an intentional feature, an undesirable byproduct of
In DNF5 how do you do this DNF4 style command?
sudo dnf remove --oldinstallonly
I'm guessing there must be a way but it's eluding me so far.
--
Ian Laurie
FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser
TZ: Australia/Sydney
___
test mailing li
would do the removal. If the two
packages pulled in are vital for python3.12, they will have python3.12
versions that you can install *after* removing python3.11. I don't
know enough about the python3.11 and python3.12 ABI differences to
guarantee that doing that is safe, though, for other pac
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:59:46 +0100
Onyeibo Oku wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:17:27 -0700
> stan via test wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:54:56 +0100
> > Onyeibo Oku wrote:
> >
> > > Any ideas?
> >
> >
> > Then I would run a
> > dnf --distro-sync
> > to ensure that everything is
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:17:27 -0700
stan via test wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:54:56 +0100
> Onyeibo Oku wrote:
>
> > Any ideas?
>
>
> Then I would run a
> dnf --distro-sync
> to ensure that everything is at the latest available version and
> remove all the older versions.
dnf distro-
lude
> properly because dnf5 tends to stop midway when it encounters an
> issue.
>
> So, I ran a "dnf check".
>
> What do you know? "check" command appears to be absent in dnf5. I
> think my local repo (RPMs) are in a bad state. I am running Rawhide.
>
Greetings
I am getting kernel panics after recent updates. Strangely, lots of
things are also broken (e.g. Python 3.12 getting mixed up with 3.11,
virtual environments, etc.). I suspect the update did not conclude
properly because dnf5 tends to stop midway when it encounters an issue.
So, I
keep local repo of rpm to use on multiple machines. Use the command
dnf repomanage --old . |xargs rm -rf
to clear rpms that have been updated. The plugin repomanage does not
seem to be in dnf5. Is there a replacement that I don't see?
___
.fc39 was tagged into Rawhide on May 18th, and
it dropped the protection of dnf (and yum). So there was a month or so
where the 'current' dnf package you got on Rawhide update dropped the
protection of dnf itself, and if you updated to that version before the
dnf5-by-default update ar
On 6/19/23 21:40, Kamil Paral wrote:
Please file a bug. It's either a man page issue or a dnf5 issue, both
options are possible.
Done:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216055
--
Ian Laurie
FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser
TZ: Australia/S
=1501804
No, that bug is only related to dnf4 and the distrosync command.
>
> >
> > --skip-broken is not helpful anymore
>
> Ok thanks. It's an error in the man page then.
>
Please file a bug. It's either a man page issue or a dnf5 issue, both
options are po
On Thu, 2023-06-15 at 07:32 +1000, Ian Laurie via test wrote:
> On 6/15/23 00:15, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > Is this option being added or is this a bug?
> > >
> >
> > seems related with
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501804
> >
> > --skip-broken is not helpful anymore
>
> Ok t
On 6/15/23 00:15, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Is this option being added or is this a bug?
seems related with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501804
--skip-broken is not helpful anymore
Ok thanks. It's an error in the man page then.
Ian
--
Ian Laurie
FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser
TZ: Au
On Wed, 2023-06-14 at 11:54 +1000, Ian Laurie via test wrote:
> The man page for DNF5 in Rawhide shows --skip-broken to be a legal
> generic option, however it does not show up in a "dnf --help" and in
> practice its use results in this error:
>
> Unknown argument &q
The man page for DNF5 in Rawhide shows --skip-broken to be a legal
generic option, however it does not show up in a "dnf --help" and in
practice its use results in this error:
Unknown argument "--skip-broken" for command "dnf5". Add "--help" for
more in
On Wed, 2023-05-31 at 10:47 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:32 AM Ian Laurie wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression DNF5 was being held of until F39?
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b3c645d401
>
>
> "
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:32 AM Ian Laurie wrote:
> I was under the impression DNF5 was being held of until F39?
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b3c645d401
"dnf5" is a separate package from "dnf" (version 4 in F38). It's already in
st
I was under the impression DNF5 was being held of until F39?
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b3c645d401
--
Ian Laurie
FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser
TZ: Australia/Sydney
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On 5/30/23 16:39, Adam Williamson wrote:
It sounds like you got 4.16.0-1.fc39, so you should manually downgrade
to dnf-4.15.1-1.fc39 , and maybe put that config file back.
Thanks, will do.
--
Ian Laurie
FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser
TZ: Australia/Sydney
___
dnf.conf.rpmnew which is why my automation script
> complained. However /usr/bin/dnf was still pointing at dnf-3, not dnf5.
>
> So it disabled my config for dnf-3 but didn't migrate me over all the
> way to dnf5?
>
> Should I manually point the dnf link to dnf5?
>
&
/bin/dnf was still pointing at dnf-3, not dnf5.
So it disabled my config for dnf-3 but didn't migrate me over all the
way to dnf5?
Should I manually point the dnf link to dnf5?
As a separate issue, I do have an active exclude (coreutils, pending a
revert of a recent change that introduc
34 matches
Mail list logo
