Re: My Fedora 40 experiences
On 5/19/24 8:58 AM, Mike Wright wrote: For the first time ever I had a need for the "rescue" kernel. Using that grub entry brought up a system that required a root login. I have not had a root password on any distro since I can't recall. Oh, I remember, edit the command line and put it in runlevel 1. hahahaha! Grampa, what's a runlevel? I ended up booting off of a USB (ventoy is awesome!) to bring up some distro, mounted the borken system, did my magic, rebooted and was back in business. Point being: what good is a rescue kernel when the canoe has no oars? The rescue kernel option has all the kernel modules. It's primarily useful for if you've changed hardware to something that uses different drivers that weren't being used before. By default, the initramfs only has the drivers needed for the current hardware. The rescue kernel option is not any different than the regular options for fixing a damaged fs. There is an issue that if it can't boot, it asks for the root password even if that hasn't been set. There has been some discussion about it, but no solutions yet. -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: This OS version ... dracut (Init ramfs) is past its end-of-support date
> On 19 May 2024, at 15:58, Frédéric wrote: > > Is it because F38 is past end of support or is it just related to dracut? You can query the EOL date like this: $ hostnamectl Static hostname: armf38.chelsea.private Icon name: computer-vm Chassis: vm 🖴 Machine ID: ce79604f5b5945f28b6a37ac66f4ffc4 Boot ID: b24f38816cef4716b447768076169c44 Virtualization: parallels Operating System: Fedora Linux 38 (KDE Plasma) CPE OS Name: cpe:/o:fedoraproject:fedora:38 OS Support End: Tue 2024-05-14 OS Support Expired: 5d Kernel: Linux 6.8.6-100.fc38.aarch64 Architecture: arm64 Hardware Vendor: Parallels International GmbH. Hardware Model: Parallels ARM Virtual Machine Firmware Version: 19.3.1 (54941) Barry -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Updated 3 machines from 39 to 40, but on 4th machine get this error at end??
On 19/05/2024 18:08, Michael D. Setzer II wrote: On 19 May 2024 at 14:50, John Pilkington wrote: Date sent: Sun, 19 May 2024 14:50:55 +0100 Subject:Re: Updated 3 machines from 39 to 40, but on 4th machine get this error at end?? To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org From: John Pilkington Send reply to: Community support for Fedora users On 19/05/2024 09:48, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: Error: Transaction test error: file /usr/share/gir-1.0/GLib-2.0.gir conflicts between attempted installs of glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.i686 and glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.x86_64 # rpm -qa | grep glib2-devel glib2-devel-2.78.6-1.fc39.x86_64 glib2-devel-2.78.6-1.fc39.i686 Don't know if other 3 machines had these installed or not? Thanks for any recommendations?? Do you need the i686 package? Turns out the i686 file wasn't being used by anything else, so uninstalled it, and reran the upgrade, and it went thru fine. Don't recall why it has both x86_64 and i686 version installed, or why they earlier had no conflict together on 39, but now failed on 40? Did find it stranger in rerunning the upgrade, it didn't have to download any of files, but rpmkeys took just as long to run. But wasn't sure uninstalling it would fix problem, so just thought I'd check if might require something more. I suppose you were using this: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/ and it's likely that downloading with --allowerasing and/or --skip-broken would have gone ahead (Section 3). But the document suggests a number of post-upgrade jobs, most of which ideally require careful thought before 'yes' :-) Thanks for quick reply. I tried your rpm -qa line on one box, and worryingly got a db error: error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# which looks as if it has been fixed by rpm --rebuilddb. The package found was: glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.x86_64 John P -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue ++ Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired) mailto:mi...@guam.net mailto:msetze...@gmail.com mailto:msetze...@gmx.com Guam - Where America's Day Begins G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ ++ -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F40 Sendmail "Connection Refused"
On 5/17/24 11:40 AM, Tim Evans wrote: I have sendmail (sendmail-8.18.1-1.fc40.x86_64) on my three home systems, its purpose being handling of LOCAL-ONLY mail. That is, output from cron jobs, local backup scripts, and the like. (I review these messages using good-ole command-line 'mailx'.) External mail is handled by my hosting provider's server, to which I connect with Thunderbird via IMAP. Two of the three systems are handling local mail correctly. One, however, is failing with: # mailq /var/spool/mqueue (3 requests) -Q-ID- --Size-- -Q-Time- Sender/Recipient--- 44HBtEsB003461 5910 Fri May 17 07:55 MAILER-DAEMON (Deferred: Connection refused by kestrel.mynetworksettings.co) journalctl reports pretty much the same error message. This began with the upgrade to F40 yesterday Following up, a reboot cleared these hung messages and current messages are being delivered. I had tried restarting sendmail prior to my posting, but that didn't clear them. -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Updated 3 machines from 39 to 40, but on 4th machine get this error at end??
On 19 May 2024 at 14:50, John Pilkington wrote: Date sent: Sun, 19 May 2024 14:50:55 +0100 Subject:Re: Updated 3 machines from 39 to 40, but on 4th machine get this error at end?? To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org From: John Pilkington Send reply to: Community support for Fedora users > On 19/05/2024 09:48, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: > > Error: Transaction test error: > >file /usr/share/gir-1.0/GLib-2.0.gir conflicts between attempted > > installs of glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.i686 and > > glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.x86_64 > > > > > > # rpm -qa | grep glib2-devel > > glib2-devel-2.78.6-1.fc39.x86_64 > > glib2-devel-2.78.6-1.fc39.i686 > > > > Don't know if other 3 machines had these installed or not? > > > > Thanks for any recommendations?? > > > > Do you need the i686 package? Turns out the i686 file wasn't being used by anything else, so uninstalled it, and reran the upgrade, and it went thru fine. Don't recall why it has both x86_64 and i686 version installed, or why they earlier had no conflict together on 39, but now failed on 40? Did find it stranger in rerunning the upgrade, it didn't have to download any of files, but rpmkeys took just as long to run. But wasn't sure uninstalling it would fix problem, so just thought I'd check if might require something more. Thanks for quick reply. > > I tried your rpm -qa line on one box, and worryingly got a db error: > > error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# > > which looks as if it has been fixed by rpm --rebuilddb. The package > found was: > > glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.x86_64 > > John P > > > > > > > -- > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue ++ Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired) mailto:mi...@guam.net mailto:msetze...@gmail.com mailto:msetze...@gmx.com Guam - Where America's Day Begins G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ ++ -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: This OS version ... dracut (Init ramfs) is past its end-of-support date
On Sun, 2024-05-19 at 16:58 +0200, Frédéric wrote: > Hi, > > I get this strange message when I boot: > [ ↑↑ ] This OS version (Fedora Linux 38 (Thirty Eight) > dracut-059-5.fc38 (Init ramfs)) is past its end-of-support date > (2024-05-14). > > Is it because F38 is past end of support or is it just related to > dracut? F38 was EOLed several days ago. poc -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: My Fedora 40 experiences
On 5/18/24 01:10, John Pilkington wrote: On 18/05/2024 03:17, Stephen Morris wrote: On 17/5/24 22:43, John Pilkington wrote: On 17/05/2024 13:08, francis.montag...@inria.fr wrote: Hi. On Thu, 16 May 2024 23:04:21 +1000 Stephen Morris wrote: On 16/5/24 21:33, George N. White III wrote: Many users have had problems with the akmod-nvida install. For 470xx the module failed to compile. For newer cards, users sometimes end up with unsigned drivers. This usually means they rebooted too quickly (during the window after the module was compiled but before it was signed.). Or before the depmod done by the postintall of the kmod-nvidia-KERNEL RPM finishes. I have had the reboot happen too too quickly before but in this case I had no control over the reboot process, it happened automatically when the installs were completed. Right: more precisely as soon as dnf system-upgrade finishes. As said earlier on this list: I made a proposal to prevent that: kmod failed to load after upgrade Fedora using dnf system-upgrade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011120 still waiting for approval. This morning 'dnf upgrade' on one of my boxes installed the 470.239.06-2 versions of akmod and kmod, while the other box, having the -1 nersions, said there was 'nothing to do'; then packagekit found them and did a preliminary reboot before install. Both boxes now have the -2 versions installed and running. The process does take several minutes - and I did an "akmods --rebuild --force" just to make sure. F40 with plasma-workspace-x11 does seem to be working well now for me, and can use vdpau. How did you get Xorg working with Plasma as I can't see any group in dnf to install that? The path to where I am now has been complicated, mainly because my nvidia hardware is 'legacy' and its 470xx driver has not claimed to support Wayland. Under Wayland all cpus max out, and keyboard/mouse are almost unusable. YMMV. dnf info plasma-workspace-x11 It's in the Fedora 'updates' repo. The other thing I didn't like with the F40 upgrade was in F39 I had dnf configured to retain 5 kernels, but the F40 upgrade reset that back to 3. My system has 450 MB /boot, space for only 2 kernels + rescue. For the first time ever I had a need for the "rescue" kernel. Using that grub entry brought up a system that required a root login. I have not had a root password on any distro since I can't recall. Oh, I remember, edit the command line and put it in runlevel 1. hahahaha! Grampa, what's a runlevel? I ended up booting off of a USB (ventoy is awesome!) to bring up some distro, mounted the borken system, did my magic, rebooted and was back in business. Point being: what good is a rescue kernel when the canoe has no oars? If you need space get rid of the rescue kernel. IMHO -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
This OS version ... dracut (Init ramfs) is past its end-of-support date
Hi, I get this strange message when I boot: [ ↑↑ ] This OS version (Fedora Linux 38 (Thirty Eight) dracut-059-5.fc38 (Init ramfs)) is past its end-of-support date (2024-05-14). Is it because F38 is past end of support or is it just related to dracut? Thanks -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Updated 3 machines from 39 to 40, but on 4th machine get this error at end??
On 19/05/2024 09:48, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: Error: Transaction test error: file /usr/share/gir-1.0/GLib-2.0.gir conflicts between attempted installs of glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.i686 and glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.x86_64 # rpm -qa | grep glib2-devel glib2-devel-2.78.6-1.fc39.x86_64 glib2-devel-2.78.6-1.fc39.i686 Don't know if other 3 machines had these installed or not? Thanks for any recommendations?? Do you need the i686 package? I tried your rpm -qa line on one box, and worryingly got a db error: error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# which looks as if it has been fixed by rpm --rebuilddb. The package found was: glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.x86_64 John P -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Updated 3 machines from 39 to 40, but on 4th machine get this error at end??
Error: Transaction test error: file /usr/share/gir-1.0/GLib-2.0.gir conflicts between attempted installs of glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.i686 and glib2-devel-2.80.2-1.fc40.x86_64 # rpm -qa | grep glib2-devel glib2-devel-2.78.6-1.fc39.x86_64 glib2-devel-2.78.6-1.fc39.i686 Don't know if other 3 machines had these installed or not? Thanks for any recommendations?? ++ Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired) mailto:mi...@guam.net mailto:msetze...@gmail.com mailto:msetze...@gmx.com Guam - Where America's Day Begins G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ ++ -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
