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 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 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 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 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 update

On 07/02/14 05:13, Patrick Dupre wrote: > When I run > yum update, > only few packages are update, > fedora is not is the list. > Then I run yum clear all > and again > yum update > and then fedora is in the list of package to update > and the update can be complete. > > What is wrong? Nothing. T

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

Tim: >> As far as the original poster was concerned, I was thinking that >> getting a text file created would be less of a problem than taking a >> screenshot, on a system where the CPU was being pegged. It can also >> be easier to post pasted text to a mailing list, than deal with >> uploading an

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

hi Tim, On 06/30/14 15:41, Tim wrote: Tim: <> Yes, that's it. When I looked at the man file, a little while ago, it just didn't jump out at me as "batch" mode being a cooked output. do not feel bad. my 'chemo brain' did not recall what i had used several years ago. i had to do a search fo

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

Tim: >> Hmm, I thought top had an option for a plain text output, but I can't >> see anything suitable in the man file. Maybe, long ago, when I did >> something like that, I just did "less -R output" ("output" being the top >> text file). g: > are you thinking of: > >-b : Batch mode oper

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On 06/30/14 10:59, Tony Nelson wrote: On 14-06-30 09:19:13, Tim wrote: ... Hmm, I thought top had an option for a plain text output, but I can't see anything suitable in the man file. ... -b top -bn4 >topout i guess i should have run a fresh download before posting. :-) -- peace out

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On 06/30/14 08:19, Tim wrote: <> Hmm, I thought top had an option for a plain text output, but I can't see anything suitable in the man file. Maybe, long ago, when I did something like that, I just did "less -R output" ("output" being the top text file). are you thinking of: -b : Bat

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On 14-06-30 09:19:13, Tim wrote: ... > Hmm, I thought top had an option for a plain text output, but I can't > see anything suitable in the man file. ... -b top -bn4 >topout -- TonyN.:'

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

Tim: >> Might be easier to just pipe the text output from "top" to a file, a >> few times, and post those text files. JD: > that would contain cursor postioning codes which would really mess > up the text file. > As the adage says: A picture tells a thousand words. Hmm, I thought top had an optio

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 18:54 -0600, JD wrote: > > Thus I will set up 4 gnome terminals on a desktop workspace. > > 1 will run yum, 2 will run top, 3 will run iotop > > and in 4 I will issue the command > > /usr/bin/gnome-screenshot > > ​ -f /tmp/scree

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 18:54 -0600, JD wrote: > Thus I will set up 4 gnome terminals on a desktop workspace. > 1 will run yum, 2 will run top, 3 will run iotop > and in 4 I will issue the command > /usr/bin/gnome-screenshot > ​ -f /tmp/screen.jpg Might be easier to just pipe the text output from "

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On 06/28/14 19:54, JD wrote: <> Very valid question. thank you. ;-) The gui desktop becomes unresponsive. But strangely enough if I have say 2 gnome terminals open in a workspace, then I am indeed able to issue commands in the gnome-terminal that is not running yum update. Thus I will set

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 4:19 PM, g wrote: > > > > On 06/28/14 12:43, JD wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Michael Schwendt >> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:02:20 -0600, JD wrote: > > <<<>>> > and the entire desktop became unresponsive. I was unable > > >>> to switch displ

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On 06/28/14 12:43, JD wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:02:20 -0600, JD wrote: <<<>>> and the entire desktop became unresponsive. I was unable >>> to switch display windows, of which I had 6. <> The next time I do an update, I will a

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:02:20 -0600, JD wrote: > > > FC20. > > > > I ran yum -y update. > > After all the files were downloaded, the delta processing started. From > > there on, all the way through to the end of > > installation and cleanu

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:02:20 -0600, JD wrote: > FC20. > > I ran yum -y update. > After all the files were downloaded, the delta processing started. From > there on, all the way through to the end of > installation and cleanup, cpu was 99.99% taken up > by the update process, and the entire deskto

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

I doubt I still have both before and after grub.cfg I have no proof at all that grub2-mkconfig after each kernel update is needed. I got this from an old thread [including you Chris Murphy] [And specifically the combo command from Gilboa Davarra] I could easily have misinterpreted it. I did have

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

On Jun 18, 2014, at 10:14 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 06/19/14 12:03, Chris Murphy wrote: >> I'm not sure what sequence this translates into. I'm pretty sure yum only >> completes once rpm completes, and rpm includes running new-kernel-pkg which >> runs grubby which is what updates the grub.cfg

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

On 06/19/14 12:03, Chris Murphy wrote: > I'm not sure what sequence this translates into. I'm pretty sure yum only > completes once rpm completes, and rpm includes running new-kernel-pkg which > runs grubby which is what updates the grub.cfg. But is it possible that > grub2-mkconfig runs before

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

On Jun 14, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Jackson Byers wrote: > yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok > in /boot > vmlinuz-3.14.3-200.fc20.x86_64 > vmlinuz-3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64 > vmlinuz-3.14.7-200.fc20.x86_64 > > I can't seem to get 3.14.7 to 'take' > after reboot still in 3.14.4 > > exact command used for

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

On 15/06/14 03:29, Joe Zeff wrote: On 06/14/2014 05:19 PM, Jackson Byers wrote: yum update && grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg Unless there's something very, very strange going on with your machine, the second half of that command is redundant, because AFAIK, part of installing a new ke

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

On 06/14/2014 07:39 PM, Jackson Byers wrote: what still puzzles me : sometimes I don't need the "grub2-install /dev/sda" when doing yum update... What puzzles me is why you ever need it. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: h

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Jackson Byers wrote: > Solved:aa > after > "grub2-install /dev/sda" > and rebooting, I now get 3.14.7: > $ uname -rsvp > Linux 3.14.7-200.fc20.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 11 22:38:05 UTC 2014 x86_64 > > > what still puzzles me : > sometimes I don't need the > "gr

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

Solved:aa after "grub2-install /dev/sda" and rebooting, I now get 3.14.7: $ uname -rsvp Linux 3.14.7-200.fc20.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 11 22:38:05 UTC 2014 x86_64 what still puzzles me : sometimes I don't need the "grub2-install /dev/sda" when doing yum update... Jack

Re: yum update from 3.14.4 looks ok, but still stuck 3.14.4-200.fc20.x86_64

On 06/14/2014 05:19 PM, Jackson Byers wrote: yum update && grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg Unless there's something very, very strange going on with your machine, the second half of that command is redundant, because AFAIK, part of installing a new kernel is rebuilding grub2. I do kn

Re: Yum Update Cache out of Space Error

On 06/11/2014 08:16 AM, Alchemist wrote: sync && du -hs /var/cache/yum /var/lib/yum && yum clean all && yum makecache && du -hs /var/cache/yum /var/lib/yum Hi, I tried the commands you suggested, even though yum may have recovered itself as subsequent regular cache refreshes seem to have f

Re: Yum Update Cache out of Space Error

2014-06-11 0:52 GMT+03:00 Stephen Morris : > Hi, > Can anyone tell me what the following errors are and why they are > being shown when /var is in my root partition which has 695GB free space? > > There is insufficient space on the device. > > Free some space on the system disk to perform thi

Re: yum update

On Fri, 02 May 2014 23:00:41 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote: > Hello, > > When I update fedora 20, I get a glitch with some packages of fedora 21! > > Should I remove rpmfusion-free-rawhide? It's not for Fedora 20, so decide yourself. You've been on these mailing-lists for many years, so you shoul

Done - Re: yum update scriptlet failed

Well I THINK I got it all. Took a bit, as things were out of date and such. Some that failed, yelled on the reinstall that they were no longer available (and there was only ~ 1hr between fail and reinstall), but an update seemed to have gotten me past things. Then after I got all that failed

Re: yum update scriptlet failed

On 02/01/2014 09:27 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: On 02/02/14 09:30, Robert Moskowitz wrote: So, I was on the road, and I don't do updates, necessarily, while on the road. I THOUGHT this would be cleaned up by the time I did my update. Well not. Number of rpms failed. Including the kernel. I tri

Re: yum update scriptlet failed

On 02/02/14 09:30, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > So, I was on the road, and I don't do updates, necessarily, while on the > road. I THOUGHT this would be cleaned up by the time I did my update. Well > not. Number of rpms failed. Including the kernel. > > I tried looking back through the old messa

Re: Yum update failure -

On 12/15/13 17:16, Bob Goodwin wrote: > This is an error message I have not had before: > > [root@box10 bobg]# yum update > Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit > adobe-linux-x86_64 | 951 B 00:00:00 > fedora/20/x86_64/metalink | 18 kB 00:00:00 > fedora | 3.8 kB 00:00:00 > rpmfusion-fr

Re: Yum update failure -

On 15/12/13 09:16, Bob Goodwin wrote: This is an error message I have not had before: [root@box10 bobg]# yum update Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit adobe-linux-x86_64 | 951 B 00:00:00 fedora/20/x86_64/metalink | 18 kB 00:00:00 fedora | 3.8 kB 00:00:00 rpmfusion-free-rawhide |

Re: Yum update failure -

On 15/12/13 05:01, Bob Goodwin wrote: On 15/12/13 04:26, Frank Murphy wrote: On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 04:16:23 -0500 There was a fix for that in F20, F19 & F20 use the same yum. Grab the latest yum(f20) from koji, and install: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=484549 Ok, I did t

Re: Yum update failure -

On 15/12/13 04:26, Frank Murphy wrote: On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 04:16:23 -0500 There was a fix for that in F20, F19 & F20 use the same yum. Grab the latest yum(f20) from koji, and install: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=484549 Ok, I did that and it appears to have stumbled thr

Re: Yum update failure -

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 04:16:23 -0500 There was a fix for that in F20, F19 & F20 use the same yum. Grab the latest yum(f20) from koji, and install: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=484549 -- Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: yum update

Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 15:38:18 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: Hello, ON a fedora 19, everey time I launch yum update, I get: --> Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/nxssh for package: qtnx-0.9-16.fc19.i686 --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: qtnx-0.9-16.fc19.i686

Re: yum update

On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 15:38:18 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > Hello, > > ON a fedora 19, everey time I launch > yum update, I get: > --> Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/nxssh for package: qtnx-0.9-16.fc19.i686 > --> Finished Dependency Resolution > Error: Package: qtnx-0.9-16.fc19.i686 (@fedora) >

Re: Yum Update Issue

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 12:23:47 -0700, Frank Tanner III wrote: > I have performed a FedUp upgrade from Fedora 18 to Fedora 19 and am now > running into the following issue: > > Test Transaction Errors: file /usr/bin/clpi_dump conflicts between > attempted installs of libbluray-0.4.0-1.fc19.i686 and

Re: Yum update error

Am 25.07.2013 21:00, schrieb Frank: > Saw this error this morning during a Yum update: > > Total size: 20 M > Is this ok [y/d/N]: y > Downloading packages: > Running transaction check > Running transaction test > > > Transaction check error: > file /usr/lib/firmware/amd-ucode/microcode_amd.b

Re: Yum update error

Am 25.07.2013 21:23, schrieb Bruno Wolff III: >> Transaction check error: >> file /usr/lib/firmware/amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin from install of >> linux-firmware-20130724-27.git31f6b30.fc19.noarch conflicts with file from >> package microcode_ctl-2:2.0-3.1.fc19.i686 >> file /usr/lib/firmware/a

Re: Yum update error

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 15:00:32 -0400, Frank wrote: Saw this error this morning during a Yum update: Total size: 20 M Is this ok [y/d/N]: y Downloading packages: Running transaction check Running transaction test Transaction check error: file /usr/lib/firmware/amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 06:43 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:19:39 -0430 > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > Was my meaning too hard to understand? The previous poster is > > replying to my comment about using fedup followed by yum update. > > It's entirely logical to ask what h

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:19:39 -0430 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Was my meaning too hard to understand? The previous poster is > replying to my comment about using fedup followed by yum update. > It's entirely logical to ask what he means by "safer". apologies was in bed. > > I'm still wonderin

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 01:49 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 16.01.2013 00:54, schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: > > On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 22:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:49:32 -0430 > >> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > Not if your using an iso as the source. > >>>

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

Am 16.01.2013 00:54, schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 22:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:49:32 -0430 >> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: Not if your using an iso as the source. As dvd doesn't normally use update just the fedora tree. hasn't

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 22:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:49:32 -0430 > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not if your using an iso as the source. > > > As dvd doesn't normally use update just the fedora tree. > > > hasn't up to F17 at least, when used as an updat

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:49:32 -0430 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > > > > Not if your using an iso as the source. > > As dvd doesn't normally use update just the fedora tree. > > hasn't up to F17 at least, when used as an updater. > > If updating from an ISO, use fedup and then yum update. That

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

Am 15.01.2013 22:22, schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: >> "yum distro-sync" is EXACTLY for "i want all me installed packages >> in the same version as they are currently in the repos and REALLY >> in the same version, independent if this means update / downgrade >> or whatever" >> >> this is as exampl

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 19:50 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 15.01.2013 19:45, schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: > > On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 18:03 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:30:03 -0430 > >> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:47 +, Frank Murp

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 18:52 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:15:18 -0430 > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > What you mean is "yum update". distro-sync is something else > > entirely, and AFAIK makes no sense when using fedup as the latter > > already does all the distro syncing

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:15:18 -0430 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > What you mean is "yum update". distro-sync is something else > entirely, and AFAIK makes no sense when using fedup as the latter > already does all the distro syncing. > > poc > Not if your using an iso as the source. As dvd does

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

Am 15.01.2013 19:45, schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 18:03 +, Frank Murphy wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:30:03 -0430 >> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:47 +, Frank Murphy wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:45:34 -0500 (EST) JOYCE PO

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 18:03 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:30:03 -0430 > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:47 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:45:34 -0500 (EST) > > > JOYCE POLZIN wrote: > > > > > > > sudo yum update > > > > L

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:45:34 -0500 (EST), JOYCE POLZIN wrote: > sudo yum update > Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit > Error: Package tuple ('libpng-compat', 'x86_64', '2', '1.5.10', '1.fc17') > could not be found in rpmdb > > > What's up with this?? What do you get when

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

Am 15.01.2013 18:54, schrieb Bill Davidsen: > JOYCE POLZIN wrote: >> sudo yum update >> Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit >> Error: Package tuple ('libpng-compat', 'x86_64', '2', '1.5.10', '1.fc17') >> could >> not be found in rpmdb >> >> >> What's up with this?? >> > With an

Re: Yum update after f17 -> f18 fedup via iso

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:30:03 -0430 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:47 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:45:34 -0500 (EST) > > JOYCE POLZIN wrote: > > > > > sudo yum update > > > Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit > > > Error: Packag

  1   2   3   4   >