Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 9:14 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 9:30 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: [snip] Were you using Gnome or something else? gnome Then I wonder why gdm was disabled. Fix the nvidia drivers first, then try starting it. akmods "Checking kmods exist for 6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64

[Test Days] Fedora Virt and Upgrade happening NOW!

Hey Folks, As the GA date comes closer; we are trying to test the last few bits in Fedora. Fedora takes pride in smooth upgrades and to ensure this we host Upgrade Test Day[0]. This time we are hosting it from 2024-10-11 through 2024-10-15. This installment of test day is, however, a bit special,

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/2024 9:30 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: [snip] Were you using Gnome or something else? gnome systemctl status (I'll try to attach the file that I redirected the output to) systemctl status --failed × sendmail.service - Sendmail Mail Transport Agent Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd

Re: filezilla and firewalls

Jeffrey Walton: > > I did not comment earlier, but I suspect there's a proxy in play for > > your mobile connection. That's why things work as expected using your > > PC, but fail over mobile. > > > > I suspect you are being intercepted somewhere along the mobile path. > > It may be on the device

Re: filezilla and firewalls

On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 20:07 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > I would not go down the rabbit hole. Instead, I would look to sftp, > which is ftp over SSH. I'm hamstrung by the hosting provider, I can only use what they provide. -- uname -rsvp Linux 3.10.0-1160.119.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 4 1

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 8:21 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 8:51 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: Can you login and sudo to root? If so, then try these commands: Well, I just log in as root. systemctl is-system-running "degraded" systemctl get-default "graphical.target" systemctl status gdm * gd

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/2024 8:51 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 6:48 PM, home user via users wrote: I had to dnf remove jgit for the system-upgrade to work.  That was true both this morning and this evening.  I assume this is not relevant. The system-upgrade seemed to run to completion, but I could not

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 10:51 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 6:48 PM, home user via users wrote: I had to dnf remove jgit for the system-upgrade to work.  That was true both this morning and this evening.  I assume this is not relevant. The system-upgrade seemed to run to completion, but I could not

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 6:48 PM, home user via users wrote: I had to dnf remove jgit for the system-upgrade to work.  That was true both this morning and this evening.  I assume this is not relevant. The system-upgrade seemed to run to completion, but I could not sit with it and watch it the whole time. 

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

(I'm back, but in windows-7) On 10/10/2024 5:28 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 5:20 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 3:59 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: After you get your problems sorted out, perform some of the post-upgrade tasks at

Re: filezilla and firewalls

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 8:44 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 8:43 AM Tim via users > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 15:03 +0100, Will McDonald wrote: > > > If it's definitely FTPS (as opposed to SSH-based SFTP) it looks like > > > that needs ports 990 and 989. > > > > >

Re: filezilla and firewalls

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 8:43 AM Tim via users wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 15:03 +0100, Will McDonald wrote: > > If it's definitely FTPS (as opposed to SSH-based SFTP) it looks like > > that needs ports 990 and 989. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTPS > > The Filezilla configuration is

Re: filezilla and firewalls

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 7:49 PM Tim via users wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 14:05 +0100, Will McDonald wrote: > > Can you use `openssl s_client` to validate the certificate chains in > > each scenario? > > On the one PC, only the timestamps differ... > > using working ethernet

Re: filezilla and firewalls

On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 14:05 +0100, Will McDonald wrote: > Can you use `openssl s_client` to validate the certificate chains in > each scenario? On the one PC, only the timestamps differ... using working ethernet: = [tim@rocky ~]$ openssl s_client -connect ftp.c

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/2024 5:20 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 3:59 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: After you get your problems sorted out, perform some of the post-upgrade tasks at . Oh, that's where

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 3:59 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: After you get your problems sorted out, perform some of the post-upgrade tasks at . Oh, that's where it is. That apparently is the step that mi

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 4:15 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 4:52 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 3:45 PM, home user via users wrote: [snip] Ok, the install didn't get very far then. Though I did not watch the whole system upgrade, my impression was that it was successful.  It was dur

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/2024 4:52 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 3:45 PM, home user via users wrote: [snip] Ok, the install didn't get very far then. Though I did not watch the whole system upgrade, my impression was that it was successful. It was during the post-upgrade tasks when the real trouble

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 6:46 PM home user via users wrote: > > (replying to multiple posts) > [...] > > (Samuel) > > If I boot from the f-39 entry, uname -a says I'm running f-39. > > If I boot from the f-40 entry, uname -a says I'm running f-40. > > Regardless of which grub line I use to boot, rp

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 3:45 PM, home user via users wrote: (replying to multiple posts) On 10/10/2024 3:45 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 2:02 PM, home user via users wrote: (I'm doing this from a windows-7 box) This morning, I did my weekly patches for my f-39 stand-alone workstation. 

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

(replying to multiple posts) On 10/10/2024 3:45 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 2:02 PM, home user via users wrote: (I'm doing this from a windows-7 box) This morning, I did my weekly patches for my f-39 stand-alone workstation.  No problems. Then I did the upgrade to f-40.  I

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 2:41 PM, home user via users wrote: (sorry.  I meant to reply to the list) On 10/10/2024 3:18 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 2:14 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 2:40 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: Try running `dnf distro-sync` first.  If it says it will install F39 packa

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 2:45 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 2:02 PM, home user via users wrote: (I'm doing this from a windows-7 box) This morning, I did my weekly patches for my f-39 stand-alone workstation.  No problems. Then I did the upgrade to f-40.  I did not sit there and watch it.

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/2024 2:02 PM, home user via users wrote: (I'm doing this from a windows-7 box) This morning, I did my weekly patches for my f-39 stand-alone workstation.  No problems. Then I did the upgrade to f-40.  I did not sit there and watch it. During the automatic reboot, it booted using th

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

(sorry.  I meant to reply to the list) On 10/10/2024 3:18 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 2:14 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 2:40 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: Try running `dnf distro-sync` first.  If it says it will install F39 packages, then don't continue. Tried it as root and

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 2:14 PM, home user via users wrote: On 10/10/2024 2:40 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: Try running `dnf distro-sync` first.  If it says it will install F39 packages, then don't continue. Tried it as root and re-directed to a text file.  It wants to upgrade packages to f-39, so I responded

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/2024 2:40 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/10/24 1:02 PM, home user via users wrote: (I'm doing this from a windows-7 box) This morning, I did my weekly patches for my f-39 stand-alone workstation.  No problems. Then I did the upgrade to f-40.  I did not sit there and watch it. During

Re: urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

On 10/10/24 1:02 PM, home user via users wrote: (I'm doing this from a windows-7 box) This morning, I did my weekly patches for my f-39 stand-alone workstation.  No problems. Then I did the upgrade to f-40.  I did not sit there and watch it. During the automatic reboot, it booted using the n

urgent major problem after f39 to f40 upgrade.

(I'm doing this from a windows-7 box) This morning, I did my weekly patches for my f-39 stand-alone workstation. No problems. Then I did the upgrade to f-40. I did not sit there and watch it. During the automatic reboot, it booted using the nouveau driver rather than the kmod one from rpm

Re: filezilla and firewalls

Can you use `openssl s_client` to validate the certificate chains in each scenario? openssl s_client -connect example.com:21 -showcerts On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 13:43, Tim via users wrote: > On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 15:03 +0100, Will McDonald wrote: > > If it's definitely FTPS (as opposed to SSH-bas

Re: filezilla and firewalls

On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 15:03 +0100, Will McDonald wrote: > If it's definitely FTPS (as opposed to SSH-based SFTP) it looks like > that needs ports 990 and 989. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTPS The Filezilla configuration is FTP protocol, explicit FTP over TLS. > You've already mostly discou

Re: false spam identification on some fedora mail

On 10/10/24 12:20 AM, Tim via users wrote: Tim: While checking on my systems I see that some mail from: List-Id: Fedora Package Announcements Was getting false-flagged as spam, this header indicates the prime reason: 5.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist [URIs: da

Re: false spam identification on some fedora mail

Tim: > > While checking on my systems I see that some mail from: > > > > List-Id: Fedora Package Announcements > > > > > > Was getting false-flagged as spam, this header indicates the prime > > reason: > > > > 5.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist [URIs: > > datalad.