On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:08:13 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > # yum install 'libunique-1.0.so.0()(64bit)'
> >
>
> No, that won't work.
Just give it a try. ;-)
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/l
On 02/08/2014 12:22 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 08/02/14 12:30, Michael Schwendt wrote:
# yum whatprovides libunique-1.0.so.0*
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, refresh-packagekit
unique-1.1.6-10.fc20.i686 : Single instance support for applic
On 08/02/14 12:30, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> This appears to be an exceptional case,
It has always been like that.
> I've done this many times and
> yum has always provided the 64 bit file or at least a file that works.
You likely confuse library package names with library file names
and wit
On 08/02/14 12:30, Frank Murphy wrote:
If you do not want or use i686 rpms,
Skype, grub-efi?
edit /etc/yum.conf
add in the following:
exclude=*i?86*
this will prevent yum returning 32bit matches.
dnf.conf should provide similar for dnf
___
Regards
Frank
That would kill some old applicati
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:41:13 -0500, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> ># yum install 'libunique-1.0.so.0()(64bit)'
> >…
> >
> >> > Is my
> >> > command wrong, that's what the rpm shows as a missing dependency so I
> >> > just try to yum install that?
> > Yes, it's wrong.;-)
> >
>
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:30:15 -0500
"Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA" wrote:
> And notecase_pro-3.8.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm expects x86_64 so will not
> install!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
If you do not want or use i686 rpms,
Skype, grub-efi?
edit /etc/yum.conf
add in the following:
exclude=*i?86*
On 08/02/14 10:13, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Because you've _not_ asked for the x86_64 lib. That one is marked
differently in the packages:
# repoquery --whatprovides 'libunique-1.0.so.0()(64bit)'
unique-0:1.1.6-10.fc20.x86_64
# yum whatprovides 'libunique-1.0.so.0()(64bit)'Loaded plugi
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:44:51 -0500, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>
> On 08/02/14 08:36, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >> > Am I missing something?
> > Yes. Why do you install an i686 library package manually like that?
> > If you want the x86_64 lib, you need to specify it correctly.
> Ex
On 08/02/14 08:36, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Am I missing something?
Yes. Why do you install an i686 library package manually like that?
If you want the x86_64 lib, you need to specify it correctly.
Exactly, that is my question, why is it installing the i686? Is my
command wrong, that's what t
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 04:30:10 -0500, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>
> I find Notecase Pro indispensable and it is one of the first things I
> install when setting up a new Fedora Linux system. I just installed
> Fedora-20 and Centos-6.5 on another computer and in both cases the rpm
On 08/02/14 07:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 8 February 2014 11:30, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
wrote:
I find Notecase Pro indispensable and it is one of the first
things I install when setting up a new Fedora Linux system. I just
installed Fedora-20 and Centos-6.5 on another c
On 8 February 2014 11:30, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA <
bobgood...@wildblue.net> wrote:
>
> I find Notecase Pro indispensable and it is one of the first things I
> install when setting up a new Fedora Linux system. I just installed
> Fedora-20 and Centos-6.5 on another computer and in both c
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:27:53 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:22:28 +0100
> Martin Møller Skarbiniks Pedersen wrote:
>
> > 2. You have multiple architectures of wine-openal installed,
> > but yum can only see an upgrade for one of those
> > architectures.
>
>
> I'm g
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:22:28 +0100
Martin Møller Skarbiniks Pedersen wrote:
> 2. You have multiple architectures of wine-openal installed,
> but yum can only see an upgrade for one of those
> architectures.
I'm guessing option 2,
sort of in that both arches may not have hit the mirror
Am 13.12.2011 22:45, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 12/13/2011 01:03 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> if you are totally unsure install smaba with a root account
>
> Are you sure you didn't mean samba? If so, I'd not have any use for it
> because I run a Windows-free LAN, except
> for my sister's laptop, a
On 12/13/2011 01:03 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
if you are totally unsure install smaba with a root account
Are you sure you didn't mean samba? If so, I'd not have any use for it
because I run a Windows-free LAN, except for my sister's laptop, and I
never need to connect to it. If you're think
Am 13.12.2011 21:52, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 12/13/2011 12:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> sounds like something is messed by an interrupted upgrade
>> however "yum --releasever=16 reinstall fedora-release" should fix the
>> version-problem
>>
>
> Thanx! That got the repolist straight.
>
>> aft
Am 13.12.2011 21:52, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 12/13/2011 12:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> sounds like something is messed by an interrupted upgrade
>> however "yum --releasever=16 reinstall fedora-release" should fix the
>> version-problem
>>
>
> Thanx! That got the repolist straight.
>
>> aft
On 12/13/2011 12:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
sounds like something is messed by an interrupted upgrade
however "yum --releasever=16 reinstall fedora-release" should fix the
version-problem
Thanx! That got the repolist straight.
after that "package-cleanup --dupes" and "package-cleanup --pr
Am 13.12.2011 21:06, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> My desktop is now out of the ICU, but it's still not running the way it
> should. At best, it's convalescent. One
> of the problems is that unless I use --releasever=16 I can't update my
> system, even though /etc/fedora-release has
> the correct value
20 matches
Mail list logo
