On 06/21/2016 11:23 PM, Antonio M wrote:
I installed by Yum Extender (Dnf) i.e. the graphical interface, and the
list that I am referring to is the list in the graphical interface, not
in the terminal, that I used a short ago
$ dnf info vlc
Repo: @System
Dal repo: unitedrpms
I woul
I installed by Yum Extender (Dnf) i.e. the graphical interface, and the
list that I am referring to is the list in the graphical interface, not in
the terminal, that I used a short ago
$ dnf info vlc
Ultima verifica della scadenza dei metadati: 0:22:02 fa il Wed Jun 22
08:00:25 2016.
Pacchetti ins
On 06/21/2016 10:47 PM, Antonio M wrote:
I find amusing that when I check a package in the Dnf list also packages
installed from UnitedRpms are listed as installed from System Is it
right?? I suppose no
How did you install it? And what command are you using to check that?
# dnf info drico
I find amusing that when I check a package in the Dnf list also packages
installed from UnitedRpms are listed as installed from System Is it
right?? I suppose no
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
2016-06-22 7:43 GMT+02:00 Samuel Sieb :
> On 06/21/2016 10:19 P
On 06/21/2016 10:19 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/22/16 13:15, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/21/2016 10:04 PM, Antonio M wrote:
a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in any
repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course
That would be the primary way. Otherwise, if y
On 06/22/16 13:15, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 10:04 PM, Antonio M wrote:
>> a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in any
>> repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course
>>
> That would be the primary way. Otherwise, if you have rpmdevtools installed,
> y
On 06/21/2016 10:04 PM, Antonio M wrote:
a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in any
repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course
That would be the primary way. Otherwise, if you have rpmdevtools
installed, you can download the rpm and run rpmdev-checksig on
a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in any
repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
2016-06-22 6:31 GMT+02:00 Ed Greshko :
>
>
> On 06/22/16 12:27, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > On 06/21/2016 09:1
On 06/22/16 12:27, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 09:12 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>>> I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux
>>> have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
>>
>> It was only one package t
On 06/21/2016 09:12 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux
have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
It was only one package that was unsigned, and it came from rpmfusion, and they
On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux
> have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
It was only one package that was unsigned, and it came from rpmfusion, and they
are in the
middle of putting up an new inf
On 06/21/2016 08:43 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Generally speaking, yes. But considering the flux rpmfusion is in these days
and I deemed
the risk rather low.
I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux
have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
(Bearin
On 06/22/16 11:36, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 07:41 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> Anyway I did try to update a system here and the OP's issue came up for me
>> and I read the
>> error message properly and simply added the --nogpgcheck to the dnf command.
>
>
> That works, but it's terrible
On 06/21/2016 07:41 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Anyway I did try to update a system here and the OP's issue came up for me and
I read the
error message properly and simply added the --nogpgcheck to the dnf command.
That works, but it's terrible practice. Those packages are (probably)
downloaded o
On 06/22/16 10:41, Ed Greshko wrote:
> You're not talking about the same issue as the OP.
I did not mean to leave that in my reply.
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproje
On 06/21/16 23:45, Dario Lesca wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 21/06/2016 alle 22.07 +0800, Ed Greshko ha scritto:
>> You could try disabling all the rpmfusion repos and try again to
>> upgrade.
> This is not the solution.
>
> If I disable rpmfusion repo the update fails:
You're not talking about the sa
I'm glad it working. You’re welcome, I was happy to do it. I know you’d do
the same for me and someone else.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Antonio M
wrote:
> very useful indeed!!! tnx to all
>
> Antonio Montagnani
>
> Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
> inviato da Gmail
>
> 2016-06-21 19:53 GMT+0
very useful indeed!!! tnx to all
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
2016-06-21 19:53 GMT+02:00 Paul W. Frields :
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Antonio M wrote:
> > Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
> > Errore: Il pac
Try to disable rpmfusion repo, before upgrading and then..
sudo dnf config-manager –set-disabled rpmfusion-free
> sudo dnf config-manager –set-disabled rpmfusion-nonfree
> sudo dnf config-manager –set-disabled rpmfusion-free-updates
> sudo dnf config-manager –set-disabled rpmfusion-nonfree-updates
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Antonio M wrote:
> Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
> Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
> (unsigned)
>
> but it is not installed
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.
Il giorno mar, 21/06/2016 alle 22.07 +0800, Ed Greshko ha scritto:
> You could try disabling all the rpmfusion repos and try again to
> upgrade.
This is not the solution.
If I disable rpmfusion repo the update fails:
> package mencoder-1.2.1-2.fc23.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.56()(64bit), but
On 06/21/16 21:52, Antonio M wrote:
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
Oh, and since you're on F24-n it wouldn't be installed
rpm -q libmpg123
No a.
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or
Hi Antonio,
Den 2016-06-21 kl. 15:52, skrev Antonio M:
> Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
> Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
> (unsigned)
>
> but it is not installed
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc2
On 06/21/16 21:52, Antonio M wrote:
> Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
> Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
> (unsigned)
>
> but it is not installed
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> [ro
Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
(unsigned)
but it is not installed
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]#
then
[root@pcdesktop1 anton
25 matches
Mail list logo
