On 03/18/18 08:41, Stephen Morris wrote: > When I used dnfdragora to remove the 28.0.0 version from negativo17 and > install the > 29.0.0 version from Adobe's repository, it told me the Adobe version was a > downgrade from the installed version, which I didn't understand. I have now > managed > to get dnf to install all the updates without it attempting to put on the > negativo17 flash update. > > I wasn't explicitly using the version of flash from negativo17, it was an > incidental process. Originally I was only using negativo17's steam, handbrake > and > nvidia repositories, until they recommended replacing their nvidia repository > with > their multimedia repository. A little while ago I was getting a conflict > between > the xorg nvidia packages I had installed and their nvidia package for xorg, > and > while I was investigating how to resolve that (which I finished up resolving > by > removing all the xorg nvidia packages) I found they had a .repo file that > contained > definitions for all of their repositories, so, rather than having multiple > .repo > files for their repositories I replaced them with the single .repo file. As a > result of this, having resolved the nvidia packages conflict, I issued the dnf > upgrade and it immediately upgraded the Adobe flash I had installed at the > time to > the version that was in the negativo17 flash repository.
I don't think I see a question in the above. But I would note the potential for problems when one uses multiple repos and packages are duplicated. In those cases it is advisable that one edits the repo file from which you don't want to install the duplicate package to add the "exclude" directive. -- Conjecture is just a conclusion based on incomplete information. It isn't a fact.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
