Re: yum hangs and results in problems (Centos 7)

On Thu, 24 May 2018 20:44:08 +0100 Gary Stainburn wrote: > Sorry for cross posting folks, but I'm a bit desperate and the Centos > mailing list doesn't seem to like me at the moment. > > All of this is on a Centos 7 system, but I'm hoping someone here can > help It's been years since I used yum

Re: yum update issue..

oh... for me.. dmesg | grep rtl returns rtl188ee modprobe rtl8188ee installs I had renamed the files for the rtl : /lib/firmware/rtlwifi/rtl8192cfw.bin /lib/firmware/rtlwifi/rtl8192cfwU_B.bin /lib/firmware/rtlwifi/rtl8192defw.bin and removed the rtl using modprobe I then, via yum, c

Re: yum update issue..

On 04/07/16 13:40, bruce wrote: Happy 4th guys.. I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed, but thought maybe I could get pointers here on this!) The laptop runs kernel for elrepo, to be able to use the builtin wifi. The update process, was the same as usual, as roo

Re: yum update issue..

On 07/04/2016 05:40 AM, bruce wrote: Happy 4th guys.. I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed, but thought maybe I could get pointers here on this!) The laptop runs kernel for elrepo, to be able to use the builtin wifi. What wifi chipset is it? If you're running

Re: yum update issue..

Hey Ed. Thanks for the reply. For grins, I placed the exclude line in the elrepo file for the yum update [elrepo] name=ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Repository - el6 baseurl=http://elrepo.org/linux/elrepo/el6/$basearch/ http://mirrors.coreix.net/elrepo/elrepo/el6/$basearch/ http

Re: yum update issue..

On 07/04/16 20:40, bruce wrote: > Happy 4th guys.. > > I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed, but > thought maybe > I could get pointers here on this!) > > The laptop runs kernel for elrepo, to be able to use the builtin wifi. > > The update process, was the same

Re: yum install nodejs installs 200+ rpms but still won't run.

On 03/04/2016 04:13 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote: > On Thursday 03 March 2016 17:37:16 Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >> engine.io isn't packaged in Fedora, so it's not going to be able to find it >> just from a yum install. >> >> You need to run `npm install` in "and it >> will download all the requires

Re: yum install nodejs installs 200+ rpms but still won't run.

On Thursday 03 March 2016 17:37:16 Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > engine.io isn't packaged in Fedora, so it's not going to be able to find it > just from a yum install. > > You need to run `npm install` in "and it > will download all the requires modules into the node_modules folder which > then can

Re: yum install nodejs installs 200+ rpms but still won't run.

On 03/02/2016 09:54 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote: > I folks. > > I've tried installing node.js and socket.io as I want to see if they will > provide a solution to a problem I have. > > However, the first problem I've got is that it won't run. Below are the yum > installs that I've tried. They look

Re: yum configure to only download one package at a time

On 2015-12-18 06:49, Robin Laing wrote: On 2015-12-18 01:34, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:05:21 -0700, Robin Laing wrote: Hello, I am trying to upgrade my system and through our corporate firewall/network filters/etc, the bandwidth is limited. Today while doing an upgrade,

Re: yum configure to only download one package at a time

On 2015-12-18 01:34, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:05:21 -0700, Robin Laing wrote: Hello, I am trying to upgrade my system and through our corporate firewall/network filters/etc, the bandwidth is limited. Today while doing an upgrade, yum was downloading five packages at a ti

Re: yum configure to only download one package at a time

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:05:21 -0700, Robin Laing wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to upgrade my system and through our corporate > firewall/network filters/etc, the bandwidth is limited. Today while > doing an upgrade, yum was downloading five packages at a time. Have you visited "man yum.conf"

Re: yum configure to only download one package at a time

On 2015-12-17 17:45, Rick Stevens wrote: On 12/17/2015 04:05 PM, Robin Laing wrote: Hello, I am trying to upgrade my system and through our corporate firewall/network filters/etc, the bandwidth is limited. Today while doing an upgrade, yum was downloading five packages at a time. Due to the l

Re: yum configure to only download one package at a time

On 12/17/2015 04:05 PM, Robin Laing wrote: Hello, I am trying to upgrade my system and through our corporate firewall/network filters/etc, the bandwidth is limited. Today while doing an upgrade, yum was downloading five packages at a time. Due to the limits, I was running into a under X bytes

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On 09/22/2015 04:04 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:16:35 -0600, jd1008 wrote: --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3.16.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts gnome-shell < 3.16.1 ... How do I resolve this? Hard to say, since gnome-shell should be in the upgrade set. Your system is in a w

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:16:35 -0600, jd1008 wrote: > >>> --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3.16.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts > >>> gnome-shell < 3.16.1 > >>> ... > >>> How do I resolve this? > >> Hard to say, since gnome-shell should be in the upgrade set. Your > >> system is in a weird state. > > Has

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On 09/20/2015 05:30 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:41:48 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 09/19/2015 11:51 AM, jd1008 wrote: --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3.16.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts gnome-shell < 3.16.1 ... How do I resolve this? Hard to say, since gnome-shell shoul

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 16:45 -0600, jd1008 wrote: > > On 09/20/2015 04:28 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 12:52 -0600, jd1008 wrote: > > > On 09/19/2015 08:41 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > > > On 09/19/2015 11:51 AM, jd1008 wrote: > > > > > --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:41:48 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 09/19/2015 11:51 AM, jd1008 wrote: > > --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3.16.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts > > gnome-shell < 3.16.1 > > ... > > How do I resolve this? > > Hard to say, since gnome-shell should be in the upgrade set. Your

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On 09/20/2015 04:28 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 12:52 -0600, jd1008 wrote: On 09/19/2015 08:41 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 09/19/2015 11:51 AM, jd1008 wrote: --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3.16.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts gnome-shell < 3.16.1 ... How do I resolve thi

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 12:52 -0600, jd1008 wrote: > > On 09/19/2015 08:41 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > On 09/19/2015 11:51 AM, jd1008 wrote: > > > --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3.16.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts > > > gnome-shell < 3.16.1 > > > ... > > > How do I resolve this? > > > > Hard to say

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On 09/19/2015 08:41 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 09/19/2015 11:51 AM, jd1008 wrote: --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3.16.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts gnome-shell < 3.16.1 ... How do I resolve this? Hard to say, since gnome-shell should be in the upgrade set. Your system is in a weird state.

Re: yum upgrade stuck

On 09/19/2015 11:51 AM, jd1008 wrote: --> Processing Conflict: mutter-3.16.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts gnome-shell < 3.16.1 ... How do I resolve this? Hard to say, since gnome-shell should be in the upgrade set. Your system is in a weird state. As has been suggested several times already, I

Re: Yum update warning

Allegedly, on or about 28 May 2015, Michael Cronenworth sent: > They are harmless. It's notifying you that the Java security policy > files you have are not being overwritten. Since I don't do it, I'm curious what happens when someone uses a GUI tool to update or install software. Do they get no

Re: Yum update warning

On 28/05/15 04:29 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Frank McCormick mailto:bea...@videotron.ca>> wrote: During todays update of 21 I got several warnings from Yum:  Updating  : 1:java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.45-39.b14.fc21.i686      Â

Re: Yum update warning

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Frank McCormick wrote: > During todays update of 21 I got several warnings from Yum: > > Updating : 1:java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.45-39.b14.fc21.i686 >3/28 > warning: > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.45-39.b14.fc21.i386/jre/lib/securit

Re: Yum update warning

On 28/05/15 04:18 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 05/28/2015 02:11 PM, Frank McCormick wrote: What should I do about these ? They are harmless. It's notifying you that the Java security policy files you have are not being overwritten. If you choose to do anything about it you can delete an

Re: Yum update warning

On 05/28/2015 02:11 PM, Frank McCormick wrote: What should I do about these ? They are harmless. It's notifying you that the Java security policy files you have are not being overwritten. If you choose to do anything about it you can delete any old java directory in /usr/lib/jvm and overwr

Re: Yum and partial downloads.

On 05/07/2015 11:03 PM, Robin Laing wrote: > On 2015-04-23 08:27, stan wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:38:35 -0600 >> Robin Laing wrote: >> >>> In one case, the file was at 99% complete when it stopped. Restarted >>> on a different mirror at 0% >>> >>> Due to firewall rules there is bandwidth

Re: Yum and partial downloads.

On 2015-04-23 08:27, stan wrote: On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:38:35 -0600 Robin Laing wrote: In one case, the file was at 99% complete when it stopped. Restarted on a different mirror at 0% Due to firewall rules there is bandwidth management and it allows downloads to start at a high speed only to

Re: yum-cron: Updateinfo file is not valid XML

Hi, Updateinfo file is not valid XML: I've seen references to this error when searching, but it mostly relates to a bug from 2012. The file exists, and looks like XML, but there must be something wrong with yum's ability to parse it... Thanks for any ideas, Nobody has replied yet, so I wil

Re: yum-cron: Updateinfo file is not valid XML

On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:25 -0400, Alex Regan wrote: > Hi all, > > After some recent update, I'm now receiving this error via email from a > crontab for updating yum from yum-cron-daily: > > /etc/cron.hourly/0yum-hourly.cron: > > Updateinfo file is not valid XML: '/var/cache/yum/x86_64/20/upda

Re: Yum and partial downloads.

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:38:35 -0600 Robin Laing wrote: > In one case, the file was at 99% complete when it stopped. Restarted > on a different mirror at 0% > > Due to firewall rules there is bandwidth management and it allows > downloads to start at a high speed only to slow down at 25MB. You

Re: yum broken

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 06:51:04 -0700, Reynold wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Trying to run yum I get the following error message: > > > yum update > There was a problem importing one of the Python modules > required to run yum. The error leading to this problem was:

Re: yum check error elfutils

On 24/03/15 13:10, Pete Travis wrote: On Mar 23, 2015 8:28 PM, "Stephen Davies" mailto:sdav...@sdc.com.au>> wrote: > > On 24/03/15 11:08, Ed Greshko wrote: >> >> On 03/24/15 08:19, Stephen Davies wrote: >>> >>> Since upgrading from Fedora 20 to 21 (using fedup), I get the following: >>>

Re: yum check error elfutils

On 03/23/2015 07:28 PM, Stephen Davies wrote: I tried that but got: No duplicates to remove A paradox? If so, it's not a most delightful paradox, that's for sure. Try this, JIC: package-cleanup --problems -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscript

Re: yum check error elfutils

On 03/24/15 10:28, Stephen Davies wrote: > On 24/03/15 11:08, Ed Greshko wrote: >> On 03/24/15 08:19, Stephen Davies wrote: >>> Since upgrading from Fedora 20 to 21 (using fedup), I get the following: >>> >>> [root@mustang ~]# yum check >>> Loaded plugins: langpacks >>> elfutils-libs-0.161-2.fc21.i

Re: yum check error elfutils

On Mar 23, 2015 8:28 PM, "Stephen Davies" wrote: > > On 24/03/15 11:08, Ed Greshko wrote: >> >> On 03/24/15 08:19, Stephen Davies wrote: >>> >>> Since upgrading from Fedora 20 to 21 (using fedup), I get the following: >>> >>> [root@mustang ~]# yum check >>> Loaded plugins: langpacks >>> elfutils-l

Re: yum check error elfutils

On 24/03/15 11:08, Ed Greshko wrote: On 03/24/15 08:19, Stephen Davies wrote: Since upgrading from Fedora 20 to 21 (using fedup), I get the following: [root@mustang ~]# yum check Loaded plugins: langpacks elfutils-libs-0.161-2.fc21.i686 has missing requires of elfutils-libelf(x86-32) = ('0', '

Re: yum check error elfutils

On 03/24/15 08:19, Stephen Davies wrote: > Since upgrading from Fedora 20 to 21 (using fedup), I get the following: > > [root@mustang ~]# yum check > Loaded plugins: langpacks > elfutils-libs-0.161-2.fc21.i686 has missing requires of > elfutils-libelf(x86-32) = ('0', '0.161', '2.fc21') > elfutils-

Re: Yum suggestion

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:54:47AM +, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Yum tells me the repos where it fails to find a package, > but not those where it succeeds. > It would be nice to know who around the world > I should be grateful to. Hi Timothy! You can see the full mirror list at

Re: Yum vs Apper

On 03/15/2015 06:09 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: On 03/16/15 04:01, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that the system is up to date. Why? On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 05:39 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cg

Re: Yum vs Apper

On 03/16/15 04:01, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > > Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that > the system is up to date. Why? On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 05:39 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > See > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152079 > > https://bugzilla.redhat

Re: Yum vs Apper

On 03/16/15 04:01, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that the > system is up to date. Why? > > Thanks - jon > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152079 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189602 Ed -- If you

Re: Yum vs Apper

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:01:56 -0700 Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that > the system is up to date. Why? > > Thanks - jon > They use different cache, also they can get data from different mirrors. So that is probably OK, if you wait so

Re: Yum update failure -_-

On 13.03.2015 17:21, Bob Goodwin wrote: ... > If I botch this I can still re-install and start from scratch again but > would prefer not. Consider these two applications: Graphical disk usage statistics - Qt/KDE - https://userbase.kde.org/Filelight Filelight allows you to quickly understand e

Re: Yum update failure -

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:15 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote: > I am still trying to fix this, just in over my head ... Run "du -h /" on your sda3 and skim over the output. Watch out for directory trees that contain many GB. Is that usage expected? Especially examine /var. Try to find any runtime files

Re: Yum update failure -

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote: > I've never used gparted before but so far have managed to shrink the largest > partition 20+ GB. However that is an extended partition and I need to add > space to / [/var/cache/yum/x86_64/21/fedora is what wants more room] and I > don't unde

Re: Yum update failure -

On 03/13/15 10:04, Michael Schwendt wrote: Plus, Bob has shown a rather empty Yum cache in the original post. I am still trying to fix this, just in over my head ... I've never used gparted before but so far have managed to shrink the largest partition 20+ GB. However that is an extended par

Re: Yum update failure -

Oops, thank you Michael! On Mar 13, 2015 11:04 AM, "Michael Schwendt" wrote: > On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:29:57 -0300, Martin Cigorraga wrote: > > > Hey Bob, > > > > Try cleaning the yum cache for unused packages... > > By default, Yum does not keep installed packages in the cache. It would be > nece

Re: Yum update failure -

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:29:57 -0300, Martin Cigorraga wrote: > Hey Bob, > > Try cleaning the yum cache for unused packages... By default, Yum does not keep installed packages in the cache. It would be necessary to edit yum.conf to enable that feature as explained in the manual. Plus, Bob has sho

Re: Yum update failure -

Hey Bob, Try cleaning the yum cache for unused packages... On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Paul Cartwright wrote: > On 03/13/2015 06:04 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote: > > > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > /dev/sda350G 49G 0 100% / > > > > Ok, there is the problem.

Re: Yum update failure -

On 03/13/2015 06:04 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote: > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/sda350G 49G 0 100% / > > Ok, there is the problem. Not sure what's going on or what has filled > that? > > I need more coffee ... > > Thank you, mine looks like [root@pauls-server b

Re: Yum update failure -

On 03/13/15 05:51, Frederic Muller wrote: On 03/13/2015 04:44 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote: I can't think of the command to show free space? df -h - [root@bobgASRockServer bobg]# df -h /var/cache/yum/x86_64/21/fedora Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda350G 49G 0

Re: Yum update failure -

On 03/13/15 05:51, Frederic Muller wrote: On 03/13/2015 04:44 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote: I can't think of the command to show free space? df -h - [root@bobgASRockServer bobg]# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda350G 49G 0 100% / devtmpf

Re: Yum update failure -

On 03/13/2015 04:44 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote: > I can't think of the command to show free space? df -h -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraprojec

Re: Yum update failure -

On 03/13/15 05:28, Michael Schwendt wrote: You forgot to show how much free space there_is_. I can't think of the command to show free space? Then, after you've done that, run "yum clean metadata" and retry. Also check the directory access permission bits -- just in case. - I did that first

Re: Yum update failure -

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 05:24:13 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote: > I tried to yum update this computer and got the following error: > > One of the configured repositories failed (Fedora 21 - x86_64), > and yum doesn't have enough cached data to continue. At this point the > only > safe thing yum can

Re: yum update problem with vlc

On 03/10/2015 11:19 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 09.03.2015, jd1008 wrote: ---> Package vlc-core.x86_64 0:2.2.0-1.fc21 will be an update --> Processing Dependency: libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit) for package: vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 yum update --exclude=vlc* Or: #yum update --ski

Re: yum update problem with vlc

On 09.03.2015, jd1008 wrote: > ---> Package vlc-core.x86_64 0:2.2.0-1.fc21 will be an update > --> Processing Dependency: libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit) for > package: vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 yum update --exclude=vlc* -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubsc

Re: yum update problem with vlc

On 09.03.2015 21:27, jd1008 wrote: ... > Error: Package: vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 (rpmfusion-free-updates) > Requires: libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit) https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1480/libgpg-error-1.17-2.fc21 tmraz & kwizart -- users mailing list

Re: yum update problem with vlc

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:27:39 -0600 jd1008 wrote: > So, how can I proceed with thish clash of dependencies? > Should I completely uninstall vlc and forget about it? The clash is because vlc requires an earlier version of a library than the one you want to install. The fix is to wait until rpmfus

Re: Yum update Vbox -

On 02/12/15 08:49, Andre Robatino wrote: Bob Goodwin wildblue.net> writes: This does not seem much of a problem but I am curious as to why I'm having this? It seems waiting a while for the kernel to update will eventually fix things but do I somehow have the wrong version of virtualbox instal

Re: Yum update Vbox -

Bob Goodwin wildblue.net> writes: > This does not seem much of a problem but I am curious as to why I'm > having this? It seems waiting a while for the kernel to update will > eventually fix things but do I somehow have the wrong version of > virtualbox installed? https://admin.fedoraproject.

Re: yum update errors wine-core-SOLVED

On 02/03/2015 03:24 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:23:41 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote: > >> Is this just me, or should I wait for package updates?? >> updated fedora21 x86_64 .. >> when I try to update I get: >> --> Finished Dependency Resolution >> Error: Package: wine-core-1

Re: yum update errors wine-core

On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:23:41 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote: > Is this just me, or should I wait for package updates?? > updated fedora21 x86_64 .. > when I try to update I get: > --> Finished Dependency Resolution > Error: Package: wine-core-1.7.35-3.1.i686 (@home_DarkPlayer_Pipelight) >

Re: yum fails with pycurl version error

Hi, On 01/01/2015 04:38 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: On 01/02/15 02:47, Alex Regan wrote: Hi, A recent fedora20 update broke yum: # yum update There was a problem importing one of the Python modules required to run yum. The error leading to this problem was: pycurl: libcurl link-time version (7.

Re: yum fails with pycurl version error

On 01/02/15 02:47, Alex Regan wrote: > Hi, > A recent fedora20 update broke yum: > > # yum update > There was a problem importing one of the Python modules > required to run yum. The error leading to this problem was: > >pycurl: libcurl link-time version (7.29.0) is older than compile-time > v

Re: yum or dnf question

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Joachim Backes wrote: > On 12/19/2014 10:16 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Dec 19, 2014 1:55 AM, "Joachim Backes" > > wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> is it possible to run "yum/dnf update []" (from the official >>> repos) tog

Re: yum or dnf question

On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 10:31 +0100, Joachim Backes wrote: > On 12/19/2014 10:16 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Dec 19, 2014 1:55 AM, "Joachim Backes" > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> is it possible to run "yum/dnf update []" (from the official > >>

Re: yum or dnf question

On 12/19/2014 10:31 AM, Joachim Backes wrote: On 12/19/2014 10:16 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Dec 19, 2014 1:55 AM, "Joachim Backes" mailto:joachim.bac...@rhrk.uni-kl.de>> wrote: Hi guys, is it possible to run "yum/dnf update []" (from the official repos) together with some rpm file residing

Re: yum or dnf question

On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 09:55 +0100, Joachim Backes wrote: > Hi guys, > > is it possible to run "yum/dnf update []" (from the official > repos) together with some rpm file residing on my box (for example > downloaded from koji)? > > Example: I need such a mechanism if mutual dependencies exist betw

Re: yum or dnf question

On 12/19/2014 10:16 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2014 1:55 AM, "Joachim Backes" > wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> is it possible to run "yum/dnf update []" (from the official >> repos) together with some rpm file residing on my box (for example >> downl

Re: yum or dnf question

On 12/19/2014 09:55 AM, Joachim Backes wrote: Hi guys, is it possible to run "yum/dnf update []" (from the official repos) together with some rpm file residing on my box (for example downloaded from koji)? Yes. yum/dnf only care about dependencies between installed and to-be installed packages

Re: yum or dnf question

On Dec 19, 2014 1:55 AM, "Joachim Backes" wrote: > > Hi guys, > > is it possible to run "yum/dnf update []" (from the official > repos) together with some rpm file residing on my box (for example > downloaded from koji)? Yes. I do it all the time. mkdir blah cd blah curl -Os blah.rpm & dnf upgra

Re: yum update issue

ok i know what is the problem. for an unknown reason, first i had to write: yum clean all and next yum update like that everything works well Best Regards Alain R. The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and confidential and is for the exclusive use of the addressee. Th

Re: Yum Repairs?

Hunter Jozwiak gmail.com> writes: > Hi guys. I accidentally pressed ctrl+C during the transaction check on > a yum update. Is there a command to rerun the command so that whatever > I stopped can be done again, and hopefully prevent breakage? As long as the transaction didn't actually start, the

Re: Yum Repairs?

On 24.11.2014, Garry T. Williams wrote: > > AFAIK, CTRL+C is nothing > > else than a SIGHUP, > SIGINT Yes, thanks for the correction! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedor

Re: Yum Repairs?

On 11-23-14 21:09:36 Heinz Diehl wrote: > AFAIK, CTRL+C is nothing > else than a SIGHUP, SIGINT > so yum should have terminated > correctly. Yes. -- Garry T. Williams -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraprojec

Re: Yum Repairs?

On 23.11.2014 21:02, Hunter Jozwiak wrote: > Hi guys. I accidentally pressed ctrl+C during the transaction check on > a yum update. Is there a command to rerun the command so that whatever > I stopped can be done again, and hopefully prevent breakage? > Thanks, > Hunter > man 8 yum-complete-trans

Re: Yum Repairs?

On 23.11.2014, Hunter Jozwiak wrote: > Is there a command to rerun the command so that whatever > I stopped can be done again, and hopefully prevent breakage? Just re-run "yum update", this should do it. AFAIK, CTRL+C is nothing else than a SIGHUP, so yum should have terminated correctly. Otherw

Re: Yum whatprovides ??

On 11/10/2014 01:51 PM, Mike Wright wrote: On 11/10/2014 09:02 AM, Mickey wrote: On 11/09/2014 11:05 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: Mickey wrote: F20/KDE Trying to determine what package provides /Settings/System Settings/Display and Monitor ? kscreen -- Rex Rex, thanks for your reply, I was

Re: Yum whatprovides ??

On 11/10/2014 09:02 AM, Mickey wrote: On 11/09/2014 11:05 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: Mickey wrote: F20/KDE Trying to determine what package provides /Settings/System Settings/Display and Monitor ? kscreen -- Rex Rex, thanks for your reply, I was thinking that kscreen was part of a workspace

Re: Yum whatprovides ??

On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 12:02 -0500, Mickey wrote: > So I figured that it was a bad install of Kscreen, so I'm going to > remove Kscreen and re-install it. Simply removing a package and reinstalling it usually fixes nothing. This isn't Windows. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject

Re: Yum whatprovides ??

On 11/09/2014 11:05 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: Mickey wrote: F20/KDE Trying to determine what package provides /Settings/System Settings/Display and Monitor ? kscreen -- Rex Rex, thanks for your reply, I was thinking that kscreen was part of a workspace.rpm i did not realize it was a RPM of

Re: Yum whatprovides ??

Mickey wrote: > F20/KDE > > Trying to determine what package provides /Settings/System > Settings/Display and Monitor ? kscreen -- Rex -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fed

Re: Yum whatprovides ??

On 11/10/14 09:05, Mickey wrote: > F20/KDE > > Trying to determine what package provides /Settings/System Settings/Display > and Monitor ? I don't understand the question. Are you asking about a selection within the "systemsettings" GUI of KDE? -- If you can't laugh at yourself, others will

Re: Yum update accident -

On 10/18/14 16:49, Michael Schwendt wrote: I wonder whether you have read about the "yum check" and "package-cleanup" commands before? For example, the "package-cleanup --dupes" and "package-cleanup --cleandupes" options. I just rely on yum to do what's required. I did yum update earlier and

Re: Yum update accident -

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:02:44 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: > All is happiness and light now ... I wonder whether you have read about the "yum check" and "package-cleanup" commands before? For example, the "package-cleanup --dupes" and "package-cleanup --cleandupes" options. --

Re: Yum update accident -

On 10/18/14 13:41, poma wrote: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-13045/kernel-3.16.6-200.fc20 drago01, hreindl, jag & dhgutteridge = 4 x Works Enough? poma Ok, done and it survived a reboot! I usually reboot after any yum update that looks like it may have changed anything

Re: Yum update accident -

On 18.10.2014 19:05, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: > > On 10/18/14 12:24, poma wrote: >> On 18.10.2014 14:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: >> ... >>> This is an updated system as of yesterday and yum downloaded a new 3.17 >>> kernel this morning but has not been booted yet o

Re: Yum update accident -

On 10/18/14 12:24, poma wrote: On 18.10.2014 14:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: ... This is an updated system as of yesterday and yum downloaded a new 3.17 kernel this morning but has not been booted yet of course. On 18.10.2014 16:58, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: ...

Re: Yum update accident -

On 18.10.2014 14:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: ... > This is an updated system as of yesterday and yum downloaded a new 3.17 > kernel this morning but has not been booted yet of course. On 18.10.2014 16:58, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: ... > I guess it's safe enough to

Re: Yum update accident -

On 10/18/14 09:57, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:24:46 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: On 10/18/14 09:01, Ed Greshko wrote: On 10/18/14 20:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: [root@box10 bobg]# rpm -qa nss-softokn-freebl\* nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1

Re: Yum update accident -

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:24:46 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: > > On 10/18/14 09:01, Ed Greshko wrote: > > On 10/18/14 20:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: > >> > [root@box10 bobg]# rpm -qa nss-softokn-freebl\* > >> > nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64 > >> > nss-so

Re: Yum update accident -

On 10/18/14 09:01, Ed Greshko wrote: On 10/18/14 20:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: > [root@box10 bobg]# rpm -qa nss-softokn-freebl\* > nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64 > nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.x86_64 > nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.i686 yum erase nss-softokn-f

Re: Yum update accident -

On 10/18/14 20:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: > [root@box10 bobg]# rpm -qa nss-softokn-freebl\* > nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64 > nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.x86_64 > nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.i686 yum erase nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64 yum update

Re: Yum update accident -

On 10/18/14 07:59, Michael Schwendt wrote: > What should I do to recover? Show output of: yum list nss-softokn-freebl rpm -qa nss-softokn-freebl\* [root@box10 bobg]# yum list nss-softokn-freebl Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Installed Packages nss-softokn-freebl.i686 3.

Re: Yum update accident -

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:37:58 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote: > I just ran yum update on this F-20 computer and I tried copying some > warnings produced using the usual CTRL-c, my excuse is I just got out of > bed and my dog is nagging me to go out. :-( > > I restarted yum with

Re: yum failure. [SOLVED]

> For future reference The reason you had to execute the commands one by one is due to the nature of the one line command given to you. > The && in the one liner is a conditional. The next command in line will only be executed if the previous command returns an exit code of 0. > If you want t

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >