On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:24 -0300 "George N. White III"
wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 13:57, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>
> > So, I have been trying to upgrade this fully updated f31 machine on the
> > CLI. I have tried the following:
> >
> >
> > $ sudo dnf --refresh upgrade
> > Adobe Systems Incor
You might do a "rpm -qa | grep -v fc31 | sort" and post that output.
That will tell you all packages that don't have the fc31 label on it,
a fair number of those packages won't have a problem, but it is likely
that if the prior user installed non-fc and non-rpmfustion rpms that
it could have made
On 9/2/20 11:41 PM, Thomas Klein wrote:
That said, you didn't explicitly mention whether you did **install the "Fedora
update utility"**
Could it be you didn't do that:
"sudo dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade"
FWIW, to be on the safe side (sorry if this of no help) here's the process:
-
Ranjan,
I'm having the same packages as you (openh264, ... and a trunkload of MORE
stuff from "outside fedora") and never have experienced any problem when
upgrading.
That said, you didn't explicitly mention whether you did **install the "Fedora
update utility"**
Could it be you didn't do tha
On 2020-09-03 02:10, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/20 9:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>>> $ sudo dnf distro-sync
>>> Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM
>>> CDT.
>>> Error:
>>> Problem: The operation
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 13:57, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> So, I have been trying to upgrade this fully updated f31 machine on the
> CLI. I have tried the following:
>
>
> $ sudo dnf --refresh upgrade
> Adobe Systems Incorporated 17 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
> Fedora 31 openh264 (Fr
On 9/2/20 3:30 PM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
might want to try adding --allowerasing to the dnf upgrade option.
I just upgraded some systems, and it seemed that fc31 had some newer
versions of packages than the fc32, and they had to be downgraded for
the update to go thru. You could
On 9/2/20 1:38 PM, Andras Simon wrote:
You seem to have a lot of non-Fedora repos enabled. For example
Adobe Systems Incorporated
Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
This is actually a Fedora supplied repo config.
google-chrome
etc.
I'd remove the packages which comes from these repos
On 2 Sep 2020 at 13:10, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
Date sent: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:10:28 -0500
From: Ranjan Maitra
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject:Re: system-upgrade f31 to f32 on CLI fails
Organization: Mailbox
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 22:38:14 +0200 Andras Simon wrote:
> 2020-09-02 20:10 UTC+02:00, Ranjan Maitra :
> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> >> Have you installed any packages from outside Fedora's repos?
> >
> > I don't know the answer: a student who knows quite a bit about
2020-09-02 20:10 UTC+02:00, Ranjan Maitra :
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> Have you installed any packages from outside Fedora's repos?
>
> I don't know the answer: a student who knows quite a bit about Fedora used
> to use it. But it has never been a problem to upgrade
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 9/2/20 9:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > $ sudo dnf distro-sync
> > Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM
> > CDT.
> > Error:
> > Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protect
On 9/2/20 9:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
$ sudo dnf distro-sync
Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM CDT.
Error:
Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected
packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip
So, I have been trying to upgrade this fully updated f31 machine on the CLI. I
have tried the following:
$ sudo dnf --refresh upgrade
Adobe Systems Incorporated 17 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_646.6 kB/s | 986 B 00:00
Fedora Mo
14 matches
Mail list logo
