On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:32:13 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 01:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > --skip-broken tends generally to fail on multilib in a way that
> > it pulls i686 deps if they seem to satisfy deps by version
> > on a pure x86_64 system as long you do not "exclude=*.i686"
>
>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:57:41 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 25.06.2012 22:32, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> > On 06/25/2012 01:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> --skip-broken tends generally to fail on multilib in a way that
> >> it pulls i686 deps if they seem to satisfy deps by version
> >> on a pu
Am 25.06.2012 22:32, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 06/25/2012 01:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> --skip-broken tends generally to fail on multilib in a way that
>> it pulls i686 deps if they seem to satisfy deps by version
>> on a pure x86_64 system as long you do not "exclude=*.i686"
>
> I'm not sure t
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:12:50 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> --skip-broken tends generally to fail on multilib in a way that
> it pulls i686 deps if they seem to satisfy deps by version
> on a pure x86_64 system as long you do not "exclude=*.i686"
That's something different and the reason why packa
On 06/25/2012 01:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
--skip-broken tends generally to fail on multilib in a way that
it pulls i686 deps if they seem to satisfy deps by version
on a pure x86_64 system as long you do not "exclude=*.i686"
I'm not sure that that's --skip-broken's fault; it sounds more like
Am 25.06.2012 22:06, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:14:34 -0700, Brian Mury wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
>>> "yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:14:34 -0700, Brian Mury wrote:
> On 6/24/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
> > "yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.
>
> --skip-broken doesn't work for the broken redhat-
On 06/25/2012 11:14 AM, Brian Mury wrote:
On 6/24/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
"yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.
--skip-broken doesn't work for the broken redhat-lsb update. I have to
m
On 6/24/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
"yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.
--skip-broken doesn't work for the broken redhat-lsb update. I have to
manually exclude the redhat-lsb packages ev
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:55:28 -0400 (EDT), Max Pyziur wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Apologies, but I'm arriving late to this discussion.
>
> I've just gone through a re-install (F15->F16) and now an upgrade
> (F16->F17).
>
> I've encountered the same problem that has been lenghthily discussed. I
Greetings,
Apologies, but I'm arriving late to this discussion.
I've just gone through a re-install (F15->F16) and now an upgrade
(F16->F17).
I've encountered the same problem that has been lenghthily discussed. I
also see that it impacts the upgrade of gtk2, cairo, and several other
packa
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:55:42 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686
>
> Oddly either of the redhat-lsb packages can be removed, but not both:
> # rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686
> # rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.x86_64
> # rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686 redhat-lsb.x86_64
> err
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 10:45 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:25:08 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>
> > It looks like I need this package. Here's an rpm log:
> >
> > # rpm --erase --test redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.x86_64
> > redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.i686
> > error: Failed depen
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:25:08 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> It looks like I need this package. Here's an rpm log:
>
> # rpm --erase --test redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.x86_64 redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.i686
> error: Failed dependencies:
> lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed)
> google-earth-stabl
On 06/22/2012 03:21 AM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> How can I tell apper not to check for updates to redhat-lsb? Currently
> the icon indicating updates are ready is on all the time, making it
> useless.
the keyword to add in your repo is "exclude="
man yum.conf for more information (the same opt
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 11:25 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 20:17 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:48:37 -0400, Jayson Rowe wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > > > Yum upgrade reports that redhat-lsb needs to
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 20:17 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:48:37 -0400, Jayson Rowe wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > > Yum upgrade reports that redhat-lsb needs to be updated, but can't
> > > because of a an error, to wit:
> > >> Pr
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:48:37 -0400, Jayson Rowe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > Yum upgrade reports that redhat-lsb needs to be updated, but can't
> > because of a an error, to wit:
> >> Protected multilib versions: redhat-lsb-4.1-4.fc17.x86_64 !=
> >> redhat
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 12:02 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > [There's a small chance that fundamental changes in the
> > redhat-lsb packaging influenced the multiarch repo composing. Its package
> > changelog doesn't mention anything obvious, however.]
>
> I've now also filed https://bugzilla.re
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> Yum upgrade reports that redhat-lsb needs to be updated, but can't
> because of a an error, to wit:
>> Protected multilib versions: redhat-lsb-4.1-4.fc17.x86_64 !=
>> redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.i686
> What's going on? Can I fix it, or must I
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:22:50 +0100, John Austin wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 11:42 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:35:32 +0100, John Austin wrote:
> >
> > > I believe this is just a repo problem
> > > The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
> > >
> > >
> > > j
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 11:42 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:35:32 +0100, John Austin wrote:
>
> > I believe this is just a repo problem
> > The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
> >
> >
> > ja@avon ~ 1$ rpm -qa|grep redhat-lsb
> > redhat-lsb-core-4.1-4.fc17.i686
> [There's a small chance that fundamental changes in the
> redhat-lsb packaging influenced the multiarch repo composing. Its package
> changelog doesn't mention anything obvious, however.]
I've now also filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/832771
The new redhat-lsb moved /lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so.3 f
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:41:08 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > > Still doesn't seem to be in the repos.
> >
> > I've reported it just in case:
> > https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5220
>
> Thanks. Should I have done this myself? What's the relation between
> tickets on this "Hosted" pa
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:35:32 +0100, John Austin wrote:
> I believe this is just a repo problem
> The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
>
>
> ja@avon ~ 1$ rpm -qa|grep redhat-lsb
> redhat-lsb-core-4.1-4.fc17.i686
> redhat-lsb-cxx-4.1-4.fc17.i686
> redhat-lsb-submod-multimedia-4.1-4.fc17.
On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 18:33 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:15:57 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>
> > > > > I believe this is just a repo problem
> > > > > The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
> > > >
> > > > Confirmed via a brief look at dl.fedoraproject.org
>
hey i am just joking i love your msges . and i am happy to
receive these msges but some time i am not understand because my
english is very bad..oky bye
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 16.06.2012 18:17, schrieb Mulkesh Sharma:
>> i dont now but please tal
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:15:57 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > > > I believe this is just a repo problem
> > > > The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
> > >
> > > Confirmed via a brief look at dl.fedoraproject.org
> > >
> > > However, only Fedora Release Engineering could explain what
Am 16.06.2012 18:23, schrieb Mulkesh Sharma:
> nothing in foot... i checked
each damned message contains to follwowing paragraph
as footer and there is the hint how to unsubscribe
CLICK: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
next time after register somewhere READ the welcome m
nothing in foot... i checked
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 16/06/12 17:17, Mulkesh Sharma wrote:
>>
>> i dont now but please tall how should i stop receiving these msges
>>
> Try reading the footer, or the "full headers"
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Frank
> "Jack of all,
Am 16.06.2012 18:17, schrieb Mulkesh Sharma:
> i dont now but please tall how should i stop receiving these msges
really, everybody who is able to register for a mailing-list
should be also able to maintain his subscriptions
each message has a footer:
To unsubscribe or change subscription optio
On 16/06/12 17:17, Mulkesh Sharma wrote:
i dont now but please tall how should i stop receiving these msges
Try reading the footer, or the "full headers"
--
Regards,
Frank
"Jack of all, fubars"
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
i dont now but please tall how should i stop receiving these msges
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 18:50 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 23:45 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:35:32 +0100, John Au
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 18:50 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 23:45 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:35:32 +0100, John Austin wrote:
> >
> > > I believe this is just a repo problem
> > > The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
> >
> > Confirmed
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 23:45 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:35:32 +0100, John Austin wrote:
>
> > I believe this is just a repo problem
> > The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
>
> Confirmed via a brief look at dl.fedoraproject.org
>
> However, only Fedora Relea
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:35:32 +0100, John Austin wrote:
> I believe this is just a repo problem
> The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
Confirmed via a brief look at dl.fedoraproject.org
However, only Fedora Release Engineering could explain what has happened
in this particular case and
I believe this is just a repo problem
The i686 and x86_64 versions are now available
ja@avon ~ 1$ rpm -qa|grep redhat-lsb
redhat-lsb-core-4.1-4.fc17.i686
redhat-lsb-cxx-4.1-4.fc17.i686
redhat-lsb-submod-multimedia-4.1-4.fc17.x86_64
redhat-lsb-languages-4.1-4.fc17.x86_64
redhat-lsb-4.1-4.fc17.i686
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:01:18 -0700 (PDT), ratboy666 wrote:
> Jonathon
>
> You have the Google Chrome Browser installed.
What a weird theory!
The problem has nothing to do with that browser at all!
The multilib update conflicts affects anyone who has redhat-lsb.i686 *and*
redhat-lsb.x86_64 insta
in common use)
--
View this message in context:
http://fedora.12.n6.nabble.com/Problems-with-update-redhat-lsb-conflicts-tp4983216p4983222.html
Sent from the Fedora List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:15:33 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> Yum upgrade reports that redhat-lsb needs to be updated, but can't
> because of a an error, to wit:
> > Protected multilib versions: redhat-lsb-4.1-4.fc17.x86_64 !=
> > redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.i686
> What's going on? Can I fix it, or m
Yum upgrade reports that redhat-lsb needs to be updated, but can't
because of a an error, to wit:
> Protected multilib versions: redhat-lsb-4.1-4.fc17.x86_64 !=
> redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.i686
What's going on? Can I fix it, or must I wait on the repo managers? If
the repo managers, when will a fix
41 matches
Mail list logo
