Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:02:39PM -0700, jd1008 wrote:
> How about updating f20 to 21 with
> yum -y upgrade --releasever=21
> Would that work?

Probably -- see the caveats at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_package_manager.

Additionally, old releases are moved off of the mirrors (to save
hundreds of terabytes of disk space worldwide), so you'll need to
update your repo files to point to
http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/updates/.

Again at some point this becomes more work than just doing a fresh
install. :)

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Rick Stevens]

On 11/18/2016 01:02 PM, jd1008 wrote:
> 
> On 11/18/2016 01:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:57:08AM +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> 20 -> 21
>>> 21 -> 22
>>> 22 -> 23
>>> 23 -> 24
>>> 24 -> 25
>>> The first few will use Fedup, the later ones will use dnf. The chances
>> The dnf system update plugin was added as an update to F21, so it's
>> only the first hop that will be different. That said, I agree with the
>> conclusion -- especially with the lack of space, a new install is
>> probably the best way.
>>
> How about updating f20 to 21 with
> yum -y upgrade --releasever=21

Assuming one has all the intervening DVDs and does the upgrades using
"local media", I imagine you could do it. I think Fedora releases that
old typically can't be upgraded via the network as the repos are
archived and not active anymore.

That all being said, 20->21->22->23->24 is going to be an incredibly,
tedious, time-consuming process fraught with errors and problems. A
fresh install would be much quicker.
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
- If at first you don't succeed, quit. No sense being a damned fool! -
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[jd1008]

On 11/18/2016 01:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:57:08AM +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

20 -> 21
21 -> 22
22 -> 23
23 -> 24
24 -> 25
The first few will use Fedup, the later ones will use dnf. The chances

The dnf system update plugin was added as an update to F21, so it's
only the first hop that will be different. That said, I agree with the
conclusion -- especially with the lack of space, a new install is
probably the best way.


How about updating f20 to 21 with
yum -y upgrade --releasever=21

Would that work?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:57:08AM +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> 20 -> 21
> 21 -> 22
> 22 -> 23
> 23 -> 24
> 24 -> 25
> The first few will use Fedup, the later ones will use dnf. The chances

The dnf system update plugin was added as an update to F21, so it's
only the first hop that will be different. That said, I agree with the
conclusion -- especially with the lack of space, a new install is
probably the best way.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:28:09AM +, Gary Stainburn wrote:
> As someone who has a F21 server that I was just thinking of fedup'ing,

So, not that this is recommended, but Adam Williamson recently posted
about successfully upgrading from Fedora 13 to Fedora 25. So... this is
possible. You're just likely to run into some odd situations and need
to do cleanup along the way, and it's hard to predict exactly what.

> what would be my best choice?  (I really don't want to do a clean install)

Aspirationally, the best choice is to get your server to the point
where a clean install is no big deal — user and system-local data all
in /home and/or /srv, all configuration done with Ansible playbooks (or
other config management), etc.

But, not everyone is there :) so, in your case, I think I'd try two
hops -- we do support 'N-2' upgrades -- so you can go to F23 and then
F25 from there. F21 includes dnf system upgrade, so it'll be the same
for both steps. You might also just be fine doing it all in one go.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 15 November 2016, Gary Stainburn sent:
> As someone who has a F21 server that I was just thinking of fedup'ing,
> what would be my best choice?  (I really don't want to do a clean
> install) 

I really just cannot imagine going through several updates-over-the-top,
to get from a quite out-of-date to a current release, is going to be
easier than a fresh install then customise it.

The updates are a nuisance, even if they go through without new bugs for
you to deal with (some completely new, others related to incompatibility
with what's left behind from previous installs).  Time-consuming,
storage-space-consuming, etc.  And to have to do that several times
over.  Once is annoying enough (I stopped trying to do that years ago).

Not to mention that there's a very good chance that as you go through
different releases, you'll strike things that cause new problems, with
each release.  Dropped and changed packages, may remove things you
wanted, or make them incompatible with past data.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

The internet, your opportunity to learn from other peoples' mistakes.


___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 12:35 +0100, luca paganotti wrote:
> Sure, fedup doesn't edit my scripts, but should update my system ...

Neither Fedup nor dnf is guaranteed to work when skipping versions, so
to get from 20 to 24 (or 25) you will probably have to do several
stages:

20 -> 21
21 -> 22
22 -> 23
23 -> 24
24 -> 25

The first few will use Fedup, the later ones will use dnf. The chances
of having a problem increase with the number of stages, even after you
solve your first problem (which is simply lack of space). I'm not
saying it will happen, but it might. Every new release of Fedora brings
a spate of emails from people who have had issues with upgrading (of
course those who don't have a problem tend not to talk about it as much
and I personally have only had good experiences). That's why I suggest
that you simply reinstall. In the end it will probably be easier.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[luca paganotti]

Sure, fedup doesn't edit my scripts, but should update my system ...






On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan  wrote:

> On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 11:07 +, luca.pagano...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If I have to make my machine from scratch, I'm thinking to switch to
> debian after twenty years of fedora usage ...
>
> Your choice of course. Using Fedora means being prepared to upgrade
> your system at least every year. If you aren't prepared to do that,
> then you are probably better using a system with greater long term
> stability. A good choice might be CentOS as it's quite similar to
> Fedora.
>
> However no-one is saying you have to "make your machine from scratch".
> If you are taking regular backups you are already prepared for the
> possibility of losing a disk or upgrading to a new machine.
> Reinstalling the system is generally easier than either of those
> scenarios. If some home-grown scripts have to change, they would still
> have to change going the upgrade path because Fedup (or dnf) is not
> going to edit them for you.
>
> poc
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 11:07 +, luca.pagano...@gmail.com wrote:
> If I have to make my machine from scratch, I'm thinking to switch to debian 
> after twenty years of fedora usage ...

Your choice of course. Using Fedora means being prepared to upgrade
your system at least every year. If you aren't prepared to do that,
then you are probably better using a system with greater long term
stability. A good choice might be CentOS as it's quite similar to
Fedora.

However no-one is saying you have to "make your machine from scratch".
If you are taking regular backups you are already prepared for the
possibility of losing a disk or upgrading to a new machine.
Reinstalling the system is generally easier than either of those
scenarios. If some home-grown scripts have to change, they would still
have to change going the upgrade path because Fedup (or dnf) is not
going to edit them for you.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[luca . paganotti]

If I have to make my machine from scratch, I'm thinking to switch to debian 
after twenty years of fedora usage ...
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[luca paganotti]

Hi Patrick, thank you for your answer.
I've tons of script an personal data and programs, isn't there a way to
gradually upgrate to the latest release? I do not want to loos e any of my
personal data and configurations, is it enough to backup my home folder?
I've databasese and so on ... I should to remake my machine from scratch?






On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan  wrote:

> On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 10:07 +, luca.pagano...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fedup upgrade stuck at "Welcome to fedup-dracut-0.9.0!"
> >
> > after moving mounts into /system-upgrade-root
> > /boot/efi
> > /boot
> > and /home
> > upgrade prep complete, switching to root ...
> >
> > Welcome to fedup-dracut-0.9.0!
> >
> > no other life signal ...
> >
> > what to do?
>
> The current release of Fedora is 24, and will be 25 in the next few
> days (maybe even today). 20 and 21 stopped receiving any support a long
> time ago. Fedup is no longer even used as the upgrade method. In your
> situation you are almost certainly better just doing a fresh install of
> the latest Fedora, after backing up your data of course.
>
> poc
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Gary Stainburn]

On Tuesday 15 November 2016 10:14:46 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> The current release of Fedora is 24, and will be 25 in the next few
> days (maybe even today). 20 and 21 stopped receiving any support a long
> time ago. Fedup is no longer even used as the upgrade method. In your
> situation you are almost certainly better just doing a fresh install of
> the latest Fedora, after backing up your data of course.

As someone who has a F21 server that I was just thinking of fedup'ing,

what would be my best choice?  (I really don't want to do a clean install)
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 10:07 +, luca.pagano...@gmail.com wrote:
> fedup upgrade stuck at "Welcome to fedup-dracut-0.9.0!"
> 
> after moving mounts into /system-upgrade-root
> /boot/efi
> /boot
> and /home
> upgrade prep complete, switching to root ...
> 
> Welcome to fedup-dracut-0.9.0!
> 
> no other life signal ...
> 
> what to do?

The current release of Fedora is 24, and will be 25 in the next few
days (maybe even today). 20 and 21 stopped receiving any support a long
time ago. Fedup is no longer even used as the upgrade method. In your
situation you are almost certainly better just doing a fresh install of
the latest Fedora, after backing up your data of course.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[luca . paganotti]

fedup upgrade stuck at "Welcome to fedup-dracut-0.9.0!"

after moving mounts into /system-upgrade-root
/boot/efi
/boot
and /home
upgrade prep complete, switching to root ...

Welcome to fedup-dracut-0.9.0!

no other life signal ...

what to do?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[luca . paganotti]

I've found two folders /var/lib/system-upgrade containing a .conf file and 
/var/cache/system/upgrade containing the new packages. Can I symlink these two 
folders?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup from 20 to 21

[luca . paganotti]

The command I issue is sudo fedup --network 21 --product=workstation
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup to F22 issues

[Stephen Davies]

On 02/11/15 11:41, Gordon Messmer wrote:

On 10/31/2015 01:53 AM, Stephen Davies wrote:

On 31/10/15 12:32, Stephen Davies wrote:


1. PostgreSQL databases were not upgraded from 9.3 to 9.4 and subsequent
attempts to do this manually fail due to locale differences (AU vs US).
(I have requested help on the PostgreSQL list).


I think you want to install the "postgresql-upgrade" package, and then run
"pg_upgrade".

Fedora 22 includes a script called postgresql-setup which claims to be able to 
do the upgrade.
I couldn't get it to work - because of the locale change and also because it 
does not allow the specification of the new cluster location.

Eventually, I used initdb and pg_upgrade to do the job.


2. Amavisd-new no longer works due to issues with PERL.
This seems to be a result of updating PERL from 5.18 to 5.20 breaking a bunch
of modules.
I thought that I had resolved these by following the hints in cpan error
messages but cannot install Net::LibIDN because idna.h is missing.
I am forced to run without spam or virus checking as a result.


Whenever you can, avoid installing modules from CPAN.  They will probably
always break on a platform upgrade.  Instead, install the module from rpm:

dnf install perl-Net-LibIDN


Thanks for that. I was not aware that this was possible.
I eventually fixed this by downloading and installing the latest libidn (as 
well as the one that was there) and cpan upgrade and reinstalling a bunch of 
modules.

There seems to be no compatibility between PERL 5.18 and 5.20.


3. All of my local sendmail aliases disappeared causing many inbound emails to
be rejected.
I manually rebuilt /etc/mail/aliases to fix this.


Question?


No question, just a warning to others.


4. After rebooting to F22, I had only one workspace.
I reconfigured to four via settings but now I get apparently random blank
screen with just the mouse cursor visible. Not even a task bar.
The only way that I have found to get my work spaces back is to logout and
login again.


I've seen some users have similar problems on GNOME upgrades.  It appears to
be gnome-settings-daemon crashing in the cases I've seen, and the only way
I've found to clear it is to remove .config/dconf/user, which nukes *all* of
the settings in dconf.  It sucks,  but GNOME decided they wanted a single
binary configuration store, so...

I'm still using KDE. Touch wood, the issue seems to have gone away since I 
changed the screen saver settings.
I used to use the screen saver that trawls through my image files but that 
seems to have disappeared in F22.



5. Some fonts (particularly within Wine apps??) have changed and are much less
readable than before.
MyHeritage Family Tree Builder is one example. I have no idea which fonts were
used in F21 nor in F22.


Can't help there.  Sorry.



--
=
Stephen Davies Consulting P/L Phone: 08-8177 1595
Adelaide, South Australia.Mobile:040 304 0583
Records & Collections Management.
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup to F22 issues

[Gordon Messmer]

On 10/31/2015 01:53 AM, Stephen Davies wrote:

On 31/10/15 12:32, Stephen Davies wrote:


1. PostgreSQL databases were not upgraded from 9.3 to 9.4 and subsequent
attempts to do this manually fail due to locale differences (AU vs US).
(I have requested help on the PostgreSQL list).


I think you want to install the "postgresql-upgrade" package, and then 
run "pg_upgrade".



2. Amavisd-new no longer works due to issues with PERL.
This seems to be a result of updating PERL from 5.18 to 5.20 breaking 
a bunch

of modules.
I thought that I had resolved these by following the hints in cpan error
messages but cannot install Net::LibIDN because idna.h is missing.
I am forced to run without spam or virus checking as a result.


Whenever you can, avoid installing modules from CPAN.  They will 
probably always break on a platform upgrade.  Instead, install the 
module from rpm:


dnf install perl-Net-LibIDN

3. All of my local sendmail aliases disappeared causing many inbound 
emails to

be rejected.
I manually rebuilt /etc/mail/aliases to fix this.


Question?


4. After rebooting to F22, I had only one workspace.
I reconfigured to four via settings but now I get apparently random 
blank

screen with just the mouse cursor visible. Not even a task bar.
The only way that I have found to get my work spaces back is to 
logout and

login again.


I've seen some users have similar problems on GNOME upgrades.  It 
appears to be gnome-settings-daemon crashing in the cases I've seen, and 
the only way I've found to clear it is to remove .config/dconf/user, 
which nukes *all* of the settings in dconf.  It sucks,  but GNOME 
decided they wanted a single binary configuration store, so...


5. Some fonts (particularly within Wine apps??) have changed and are 
much less

readable than before.
MyHeritage Family Tree Builder is one example. I have no idea which 
fonts were

used in F21 nor in F22.


Can't help there.  Sorry.
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup to F22 issues

[Stephen Davies]

On 31/10/15 12:32, Stephen Davies wrote:

I have just run
fedup --network 22

and have several issues as a result.

1. PostgreSQL databases were not upgraded from 9.3 to 9.4 and subsequent
attempts to do this manually fail due to locale differences (AU vs US).
(I have requested help on the PostgreSQL list).

2. Amavisd-new no longer works due to issues with PERL.
This seems to be a result of updating PERL from 5.18 to 5.20 breaking a bunch
of modules.
I thought that I had resolved these by following the hints in cpan error
messages but cannot install Net::LibIDN because idna.h is missing.
I am forced to run without spam or virus checking as a result.

3. All of my local sendmail aliases disappeared causing many inbound emails to
be rejected.
I manually rebuilt /etc/mail/aliases to fix this.

4. After rebooting to F22, I had only one workspace.
I reconfigured to four via settings but now I get apparently random blank
screen with just the mouse cursor visible. Not even a task bar.
The only way that I have found to get my work spaces back is to logout and
login again.

5. Some fonts (particularly within Wine apps??) have changed and are much less
readable than before.
MyHeritage Family Tree Builder is one example. I have no idea which fonts were
used in F21 nor in F22.

I'd be grateful for any help in resolving these.

Cheers,
Stephen



Regarding point 2.
I have confirmed that libidn is installed (11.6.5) and idna.h is in 
/usr/include/unicode but Net::LibIDN still will not install.

I suspect a version issue.
Does anybody know what version of libidn is required by Net::LibIDN?

This issue did not exist in F21 and the version of Net::LibIDN has not changed 
in ages so I suspect a Fedora issue rather than PERL.


--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup leaves me stuck between 21 and 22

[sean darcy]

On 10/07/2015 11:31 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On 10/06/2015 07:18 PM, sean darcy wrote:

running updated 21.

fedup --network 22

Preparation seemed to go well:


[   191.911] (II) fedup:() /usr/bin/fedup exiting cleanly at Tue
Oct  6 12:26:25 2015

Rebooted.

Died somewhere in upgrading. Is there any log of the upgrade ?

No new kernel installed. Reboots into 21 kernel. Lots of dupes. yum
upgrade just give 21 updates.


Lot of dupes means something went wrong during the upgrade, probably has
corrupted the rpmdb.

You need to clean up the dupes and try to bring things in consistent
shape again.

Try using "yum/dnf distro-sync", "package-cleanup --dupes" and "rpm".

Ralf



distro-sync doesn't work. It finds all the packages with fc22 installed, 
but simply tries to reinstall the fc21 packages. Then it fails because 
all the fc21 packages are already installed.


package-cleanup find the dupes ok , but package-cleanup --cleandupes 
will remove the _older_ package. Not what we want.


FWIW, I ran rebuilddb.

What i'd really like to do is find a way to get fedup to run. I can't 
figure out where fedup is getting the info I'm already at fc22.


Stumped.

sean

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup leaves me stuck between 21 and 22

[sean darcy]

On 10/07/2015 09:55 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:18:27PM -0400, sean darcy wrote:

running updated 21.

fedup --network 22

Preparation seemed to go well:


[   191.911] (II) fedup:() /usr/bin/fedup exiting cleanly at Tue Oct
6 12:26:25 2015

Rebooted.

Died somewhere in upgrading. Is there any log of the upgrade ?

No new kernel installed. Reboots into 21 kernel. Lots of dupes. yum upgrade
just give 21 updates.

fedup no help:

fedup --network 22
usage: fedup  [options]
fedup: error: argument --network: version must be higher than 22

Any help appreciated.


I believe the upgrade log is in /var/log/upgrade.log.

You might want to try this:

# dnf --allowerasing --assumeno update | tee dnflog.txt

If I recall correctly, this happened to me on only one system I tried
upgrading from F21 -> F22.  There I blithely did a 'dnf update' just
to see what would happen.  (It was an experimental system so I was OK
with being foolhardy).  In that case, the update just solved
everything.

However, I'm not fully confident it will work for you, but if you look
at the output (dnflog.txt) you'll see a list of what would happen if
you ran the update.  Ideally, you'll see lots of potential updates,
and very few potential removals (maybe old kernels, but make sure at
least one is being updated).

Based on the results, you can decide what if any data to back up, and
then try it.  YMMV, caveat emptor.



dnf --allowerasing --assumeno update
Using metadata from Sun Oct 11 09:19:47 2015 (1 day, 4:21:06 hours old)
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!

dnf thinks I'm at 21 , fedup has me at 22 !

stumped.

sean


--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup leaves me stuck between 21 and 22

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 12:57:18PM -0400, sean darcy wrote:
> On 10/07/2015 09:55 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:18:27PM -0400, sean darcy wrote:
> >>running updated 21.
> >>
> >>fedup --network 22
> >>
> >>Preparation seemed to go well:
> >>
> >>
> >>[   191.911] (II) fedup:() /usr/bin/fedup exiting cleanly at Tue Oct
> >>6 12:26:25 2015
> >>
> >>Rebooted.
> >>
> >>Died somewhere in upgrading. Is there any log of the upgrade ?
> >>
> >>No new kernel installed. Reboots into 21 kernel. Lots of dupes. yum upgrade
> >>just give 21 updates.
> >>
> >>fedup no help:
> >>
> >>fedup --network 22
> >>usage: fedup  [options]
> >>fedup: error: argument --network: version must be higher than 22
> >>
> >>Any help appreciated.
> >
> >I believe the upgrade log is in /var/log/upgrade.log.
> >
> >You might want to try this:
> >
> ># dnf --allowerasing --assumeno update | tee dnflog.txt
> >
> >If I recall correctly, this happened to me on only one system I tried
> >upgrading from F21 -> F22.  There I blithely did a 'dnf update' just
> >to see what would happen.  (It was an experimental system so I was OK
> >with being foolhardy).  In that case, the update just solved
> >everything.
> >
> >However, I'm not fully confident it will work for you, but if you look
> >at the output (dnflog.txt) you'll see a list of what would happen if
> >you ran the update.  Ideally, you'll see lots of potential updates,
> >and very few potential removals (maybe old kernels, but make sure at
> >least one is being updated).
> >
> >Based on the results, you can decide what if any data to back up, and
> >then try it.  YMMV, caveat emptor.
> >
> 
> Well despite it's name, upgrade.log only logs the preparation steps. The
> quote about fedup exiting cleanly is the last line of upgrade.log.
> 
> dnf thinks I'm on fc21.
> 
> dnf upgrade
> Using metadata from Mon Oct  5 17:27:37 2015 (1 day, 19:25:15 hours old)
> Dependencies resolved.
> Nothing to do.
> Complete!
> 
> So using dnf won't help.
> 
> fedora-release-22-1 is installed:
> 
> fedora-release-21-2.noarch
> fedora-release-22-1.noarch
> 
> 
> I think that's why fedup has the machine at fc22.
> 
> What about erasing fedora-release-22-1.noarch and rerunning fedup?

What happens if you add '--releasever 22' to the options in the
command I had above?

-- 
Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup leaves me stuck between 21 and 22

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 10/06/2015 07:18 PM, sean darcy wrote:

running updated 21.

fedup --network 22

Preparation seemed to go well:


[   191.911] (II) fedup:() /usr/bin/fedup exiting cleanly at Tue
Oct  6 12:26:25 2015

Rebooted.

Died somewhere in upgrading. Is there any log of the upgrade ?

No new kernel installed. Reboots into 21 kernel. Lots of dupes. yum
upgrade just give 21 updates.


Lot of dupes means something went wrong during the upgrade, probably has 
corrupted the rpmdb.


You need to clean up the dupes and try to bring things in consistent 
shape again.


Try using "yum/dnf distro-sync", "package-cleanup --dupes" and "rpm".

Ralf

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup leaves me stuck between 21 and 22

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:18:27PM -0400, sean darcy wrote:
> running updated 21.
> 
> fedup --network 22
> 
> Preparation seemed to go well:
> 
> 
> [   191.911] (II) fedup:() /usr/bin/fedup exiting cleanly at Tue Oct
> 6 12:26:25 2015
> 
> Rebooted.
> 
> Died somewhere in upgrading. Is there any log of the upgrade ?
> 
> No new kernel installed. Reboots into 21 kernel. Lots of dupes. yum upgrade
> just give 21 updates.
> 
> fedup no help:
> 
> fedup --network 22
> usage: fedup  [options]
> fedup: error: argument --network: version must be higher than 22
> 
> Any help appreciated.

I believe the upgrade log is in /var/log/upgrade.log.

You might want to try this:

# dnf --allowerasing --assumeno update | tee dnflog.txt

If I recall correctly, this happened to me on only one system I tried
upgrading from F21 -> F22.  There I blithely did a 'dnf update' just
to see what would happen.  (It was an experimental system so I was OK
with being foolhardy).  In that case, the update just solved
everything.

However, I'm not fully confident it will work for you, but if you look
at the output (dnflog.txt) you'll see a list of what would happen if
you ran the update.  Ideally, you'll see lots of potential updates,
and very few potential removals (maybe old kernels, but make sure at
least one is being updated).

Based on the results, you can decide what if any data to back up, and
then try it.  YMMV, caveat emptor.

-- 
Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup leaves me stuck between 21 and 22

[stan]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 12:57:18 -0400
sean darcy  wrote:

> dnf thinks I'm on fc21.
> 
> dnf upgrade
> Using metadata from Mon Oct  5 17:27:37 2015 (1 day, 19:25:15 hours
> old) Dependencies resolved.
> Nothing to do.
> Complete!
> 
> So using dnf won't help.
> 
> fedora-release-22-1 is installed:
> 
> fedora-release-21-2.noarch
> fedora-release-22-1.noarch
> 
> 
> I think that's why fedup has the machine at fc22.
> 
> What about erasing fedora-release-22-1.noarch and rerunning fedup?

A couple of suggestions, with some risk, but pretty low.

Maybe try a  dnf distro-sync  first?  If it thinks the machine is at
f21, perhaps it will clean everything up.  And you can run fedup
again.  Maybe it will even see the f22 release and sync it to f22
instead.

Or, you could go into /etc/yum.repos.d/ and turn off the f21 repos, and
turn on the f22 repos, and then run  dnf upgrade  again.
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup leaves me stuck between 21 and 22

[sean darcy]

On 10/07/2015 09:55 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:18:27PM -0400, sean darcy wrote:

running updated 21.

fedup --network 22

Preparation seemed to go well:


[   191.911] (II) fedup:() /usr/bin/fedup exiting cleanly at Tue Oct
6 12:26:25 2015

Rebooted.

Died somewhere in upgrading. Is there any log of the upgrade ?

No new kernel installed. Reboots into 21 kernel. Lots of dupes. yum upgrade
just give 21 updates.

fedup no help:

fedup --network 22
usage: fedup  [options]
fedup: error: argument --network: version must be higher than 22

Any help appreciated.


I believe the upgrade log is in /var/log/upgrade.log.

You might want to try this:

# dnf --allowerasing --assumeno update | tee dnflog.txt

If I recall correctly, this happened to me on only one system I tried
upgrading from F21 -> F22.  There I blithely did a 'dnf update' just
to see what would happen.  (It was an experimental system so I was OK
with being foolhardy).  In that case, the update just solved
everything.

However, I'm not fully confident it will work for you, but if you look
at the output (dnflog.txt) you'll see a list of what would happen if
you ran the update.  Ideally, you'll see lots of potential updates,
and very few potential removals (maybe old kernels, but make sure at
least one is being updated).

Based on the results, you can decide what if any data to back up, and
then try it.  YMMV, caveat emptor.



Well despite it's name, upgrade.log only logs the preparation steps. The 
quote about fedup exiting cleanly is the last line of upgrade.log.


dnf thinks I'm on fc21.

dnf upgrade
Using metadata from Mon Oct  5 17:27:37 2015 (1 day, 19:25:15 hours old)
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!

So using dnf won't help.

fedora-release-22-1 is installed:

fedora-release-21-2.noarch
fedora-release-22-1.noarch


I think that's why fedup has the machine at fc22.

What about erasing fedora-release-22-1.noarch and rerunning fedup?

sean


--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[jd1008]

On 09/18/2015 08:13 PM, Susi Lehtola wrote:

On 09/17/2015 06:27 PM, jd1008 wrote:

On 09/17/2015 06:21 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:

Second, I wouldn't even attempt an update to F22 from here. I would
upgrade to F21 first with the local repo disabled.


Going the route of first installing f21 and then f22 is way too long
(i.e. time consuming, during which the computer is not being used
for more important things.


But it is also the only one officially supported.

You might be able to do a yum upgrade directly to Fedora 22 since no 
critical components have changed.


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_20_-.3E_Fedora_21 



PS. What does
$ rpm -q fedora-release
say?

$ rpm -q fedora-release
fedora-release-20-4.noarch
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Susi Lehtola]

On 09/17/2015 06:27 PM, jd1008 wrote:

On 09/17/2015 06:21 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:

Second, I wouldn't even attempt an update to F22 from here. I would
upgrade to F21 first with the local repo disabled.


Going the route of first installing f21 and then f22 is way too long
(i.e. time consuming, during which the computer is not being used
for more important things.


But it is also the only one officially supported.

You might be able to do a yum upgrade directly to Fedora 22 since no 
critical components have changed.


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_20_-.3E_Fedora_21

PS. What does
$ rpm -q fedora-release
say?
--
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[jd1008]

On 09/16/2015 11:40 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:


yum repolist 

$ yum repolist
Loaded plugins: aliases, auto-update-debuginfo, changelog, 
fastestmirror, filter-data, fs-snapshot, keys, langpacks, list-data,
  : local, merge-conf, post-transaction-actions, 
priorities, protectbase, refresh-packagekit, refresh-updatesd,
  : remove-with-leaves, rpm-warm-cache, show-leaves, 
tmprepo, tsflags, upgrade-helper, verify, versionlock

_local | 2.9 kB  00:00:00
fedora/20/x86_64/metalink | 3.5 kB  00:00:00
fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.4 kB  00:00:00
fedora-debuginfo | 3.1 kB  00:00:00
fedora-source/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.8 kB  00:00:00
fedora-source | 3.0 kB  00:00:00
google-earth |  951 B  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-debuginfo | 2.7 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-source | 2.7 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-updates | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
skype | 1.2 kB  00:00:00
updates/20/x86_64/metalink | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.3 kB  00:00:00
updates-debuginfo | 3.0 kB  00:00:00
updates-source/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.6 kB  00:00:00
updates-source | 3.7 kB  00:00:00
(1/4): updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db | 859 kB  00:00:01
(2/4): fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db | 1.9 MB  00:00:02
(3/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/primary_db | 1.8 MB  00:00:02
(4/4): fedora-source/20/x86_64/primary_db | 4.7 MB  00:00:02
(1/4): rpmfusion-free-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db |  49 kB  00:00:01
(2/4): rpmfusion-free-source/20/x86_64/primary_db |  87 kB  00:00:01
(3/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/updateinfo | 2.0 MB  00:00:01
(4/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/pkgtags | 1.6 MB  00:00:00
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
 * fedora: dl.fedoraproject.org
 * fedora-debuginfo: dl.fedoraproject.org
 * fedora-source: dl.fedoraproject.org
 * rpmfusion-free: lug.mtu.edu
 * rpmfusion-free-debuginfo: lug.mtu.edu
 * rpmfusion-free-source: lug.mtu.edu
 * rpmfusion-free-updates: lug.mtu.edu
 * rpmfusion-nonfree: lug.mtu.edu
 * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: lug.mtu.edu
 * updates: dl.fedoraproject.org
 * updates-debuginfo: dl.fedoraproject.org
 * updates-source: dl.fedoraproject.org
0 packages excluded due to repository protections
repo id   repo name status
_localAutomatic local repo. 
(manged by the "local" yum plugin). 64

fedora/20/x86_64  Fedora 20 - x86_64 38,597
fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64Fedora 20 - x86_64 - 
Debug 6,881

fedora-source/20/x86_64   Fedora 20 - Source 0
google-earth google-earth 1
rpmfusion-free/20/x86_64  RPM Fusion for Fedora 
20 - Free468
rpmfusion-free-debuginfo/20/x86_64RPM Fusion for Fedora 
20 - Free - Debug166
rpmfusion-free-source/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora 
20 - Free - Source 0
rpmfusion-free-updates/20/x86_64  RPM Fusion for Fedora 
20 - Free - Updates  683
rpmfusion-nonfree/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora 
20 - Nonfree 203
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora 
20 - Nonfree - Updates   561

skype Skype Repository 1
updates/20/x86_64 Fedora 20 - x86_64 - 
Updates 22,459
updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64   Fedora 20 - x86_64 - 
Updates - Debug 3,079
updates-source/20/x86_64  Fedora 20 - Updates 
Source 0


--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Gordon Messmer]

On 09/17/2015 05:21 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:

Well, you really should be using "dnf repolist", but it's pretty
obvious you have F20 repos for the most part. 


On a mostly-Fedora-20 system, I wouldn't expect dnf to be installed.


Your machine is in a weird state, so these are somewhat draconian
measures to try to drag it into currency. The alternative is a good
backup followed by a fresh install of F22 or whatever you want to use.


That I agree with.  This install is probably 12-18 months old, without 
an audit trail for changes.

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Gordon Messmer]

On 09/17/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote:



On 09/16/2015 11:40 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:


yum repolist 

$ yum repolist


Less useful than I hoped, but I missed this from your first message:


/var/cache/system-upgrade/fedora/packages/
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 a2jmidid-8-9.fc23.x86_64.rpm


The "fedora" repo is the one with the bad URL.  Check the definition of 
that repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/


--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[jd1008]

On 09/17/2015 06:21 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:

On 09/17/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote:



On 09/16/2015 11:40 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:


yum repolist

$ yum repolist
Loaded plugins: aliases, auto-update-debuginfo, changelog,
fastestmirror, filter-data, fs-snapshot, keys, langpacks, list-data,
   : local, merge-conf, post-transaction-actions,
priorities, protectbase, refresh-packagekit, refresh-updatesd,
   : remove-with-leaves, rpm-warm-cache, show-leaves,
tmprepo, tsflags, upgrade-helper, verify, versionlock
_local | 2.9 kB  00:00:00
fedora/20/x86_64/metalink | 3.5 kB  00:00:00
fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.4 kB  00:00:00
fedora-debuginfo | 3.1 kB  00:00:00
fedora-source/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.8 kB  00:00:00
fedora-source | 3.0 kB  00:00:00
google-earth |  951 B  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-debuginfo | 2.7 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-source | 2.7 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-updates | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
skype | 1.2 kB  00:00:00
updates/20/x86_64/metalink | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.3 kB  00:00:00
updates-debuginfo | 3.0 kB  00:00:00
updates-source/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.6 kB  00:00:00
updates-source | 3.7 kB  00:00:00
(1/4): updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db | 859 kB  00:00:01
(2/4): fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db | 1.9 MB  00:00:02
(3/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/primary_db | 1.8 MB  00:00:02
(4/4): fedora-source/20/x86_64/primary_db | 4.7 MB  00:00:02
(1/4): rpmfusion-free-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db |  49 kB 00:00:01
(2/4): rpmfusion-free-source/20/x86_64/primary_db |  87 kB 00:00:01
(3/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/updateinfo | 2.0 MB  00:00:01
(4/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/pkgtags | 1.6 MB  00:00:00
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
  * fedora: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * fedora-debuginfo: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * fedora-source: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * rpmfusion-free: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-free-debuginfo: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-free-source: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-free-updates: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-nonfree: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: lug.mtu.edu
  * updates: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * updates-debuginfo: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * updates-source: dl.fedoraproject.org
0 packages excluded due to repository protections
repo id   repo name status
_localAutomatic local repo.
(manged by the "local" yum plugin). 64
fedora/20/x86_64  Fedora 20 - x86_64 
38,597

fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64Fedora 20 - x86_64 -
Debug 6,881
fedora-source/20/x86_64   Fedora 20 - Source 0
google-earth google-earth 1
rpmfusion-free/20/x86_64  RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Free468
rpmfusion-free-debuginfo/20/x86_64RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Free - Debug166
rpmfusion-free-source/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Free - Source 0
rpmfusion-free-updates/20/x86_64  RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Free - Updates  683
rpmfusion-nonfree/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Nonfree 203
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Nonfree - Updates   561
skype Skype Repository 1
updates/20/x86_64 Fedora 20 - x86_64 -
Updates 22,459
updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64   Fedora 20 - x86_64 -
Updates - Debug 3,079
updates-source/20/x86_64  Fedora 20 - Updates
Source 0


Well, you really should be using "dnf repolist", but it's pretty
obvious you have F20 repos for the most part. You also seem to have
a local repo and that may be where your F23 stuff is coming from.

I did not create the local repo.
It is present in /etc/yum.repos.d/_local
and it contains:

[_local]
name=Automatic local repo. (manged by the "local" yum plugin).
baseurl=file:/var/lib/yum/plugins/local
enabled=1
gpgcheck=true
#  Metadata expire could be set to "never" because the local plugin will
# automatically cause a cache refresh when new packages are added. However
# it's really cheap to check, and this way people can dump stuff in whenever
# and it never gets out of sync. for long.
metadata_expire=1h
#  Make cost smaller, as we know it's "local". If you really want to be 
sure,
# you can do this ... but the name will do pretty much the same thing, 
and that

# way we can also see the other packages (with: --showduplicates list).
# cost=500

But I guarantee you I did not create that beast.
So, I went ahead and deleted it and restarted fedup (which you say 
should not behave as it does),

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[jd1008]

On 09/17/2015 07:19 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:

On 09/17/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote:



On 09/16/2015 11:40 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:


yum repolist 

$ yum repolist


Less useful than I hoped, but I missed this from your first message:


/var/cache/system-upgrade/fedora/packages/
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 a2jmidid-8-9.fc23.x86_64.rpm


The "fedora" repo is the one with the bad URL.  Check the definition 
of that repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/



The fedora repos:
[fedora]
name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch
failovermethod=priority
#baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/$releasever/Everything/$basearch/os/
metalink=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-$releasever=$basearch
enabled=1
#metadata_expire=7d
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$releasever-$basearch
skip_if_unavailable=False

[fedora-debuginfo]
name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch - Debug
failovermethod=priority
#baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/$releasever/Everything/$basearch/debug/
metalink=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-debug-$releasever=$basearch
enabled=0
metadata_expire=7d
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$releasever-$basearch
skip_if_unavailable=False

[fedora-source]
name=Fedora $releasever - Source
failovermethod=priority
#baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/$releasever/Everything/source/SRPMS/
metalink=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-source-$releasever=$basearch
enabled=0
metadata_expire=7d
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$releasever-$basearch
skip_if_unavailable=False


[updates]
name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch - Updates
failovermethod=priority
#baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/$releasever/$basearch/
metalink=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=updates-released-f$releasever=$basearch
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
metadata_expire=6h
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$releasever-$basearch
skip_if_unavailable=False

[updates-debuginfo]
name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch - Updates - Debug
failovermethod=priority
#baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/$releasever/$basearch/debug/
metalink=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=updates-released-debug-f$releasever=$basearch
enabled=0
gpgcheck=1
metadata_expire=6h
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$releasever-$basearch
skip_if_unavailable=False

[updates-source]
name=Fedora $releasever - Updates Source
failovermethod=priority
#baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/$releasever/SRPMS/
metalink=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=updates-released-source-f$releasever=$basearch
enabled=0
gpgcheck=1
metadata_expire=6h
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$releasever-$basearch
skip_if_unavailable=False

Rawhide and Testing have   enabled=0 in all stanzas.


--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Rick Stevens]

On 09/17/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote:



On 09/16/2015 11:40 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:


yum repolist

$ yum repolist
Loaded plugins: aliases, auto-update-debuginfo, changelog,
fastestmirror, filter-data, fs-snapshot, keys, langpacks, list-data,
   : local, merge-conf, post-transaction-actions,
priorities, protectbase, refresh-packagekit, refresh-updatesd,
   : remove-with-leaves, rpm-warm-cache, show-leaves,
tmprepo, tsflags, upgrade-helper, verify, versionlock
_local | 2.9 kB  00:00:00
fedora/20/x86_64/metalink | 3.5 kB  00:00:00
fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.4 kB  00:00:00
fedora-debuginfo | 3.1 kB  00:00:00
fedora-source/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.8 kB  00:00:00
fedora-source | 3.0 kB  00:00:00
google-earth |  951 B  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-debuginfo | 2.7 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-source | 2.7 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-free-updates | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
skype | 1.2 kB  00:00:00
updates/20/x86_64/metalink | 3.3 kB  00:00:00
updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.3 kB  00:00:00
updates-debuginfo | 3.0 kB  00:00:00
updates-source/20/x86_64/metalink | 2.6 kB  00:00:00
updates-source | 3.7 kB  00:00:00
(1/4): updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db | 859 kB  00:00:01
(2/4): fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db | 1.9 MB  00:00:02
(3/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/primary_db | 1.8 MB  00:00:02
(4/4): fedora-source/20/x86_64/primary_db | 4.7 MB  00:00:02
(1/4): rpmfusion-free-debuginfo/20/x86_64/primary_db |  49 kB  00:00:01
(2/4): rpmfusion-free-source/20/x86_64/primary_db |  87 kB  00:00:01
(3/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/updateinfo | 2.0 MB  00:00:01
(4/4): updates-source/20/x86_64/pkgtags | 1.6 MB  00:00:00
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
  * fedora: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * fedora-debuginfo: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * fedora-source: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * rpmfusion-free: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-free-debuginfo: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-free-source: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-free-updates: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-nonfree: lug.mtu.edu
  * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: lug.mtu.edu
  * updates: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * updates-debuginfo: dl.fedoraproject.org
  * updates-source: dl.fedoraproject.org
0 packages excluded due to repository protections
repo id   repo name status
_localAutomatic local repo.
(manged by the "local" yum plugin). 64
fedora/20/x86_64  Fedora 20 - x86_64 38,597
fedora-debuginfo/20/x86_64Fedora 20 - x86_64 -
Debug 6,881
fedora-source/20/x86_64   Fedora 20 - Source 0
google-earth google-earth 1
rpmfusion-free/20/x86_64  RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Free468
rpmfusion-free-debuginfo/20/x86_64RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Free - Debug166
rpmfusion-free-source/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Free - Source 0
rpmfusion-free-updates/20/x86_64  RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Free - Updates  683
rpmfusion-nonfree/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Nonfree 203
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates/20/x86_64   RPM Fusion for Fedora
20 - Nonfree - Updates   561
skype Skype Repository 1
updates/20/x86_64 Fedora 20 - x86_64 -
Updates 22,459
updates-debuginfo/20/x86_64   Fedora 20 - x86_64 -
Updates - Debug 3,079
updates-source/20/x86_64  Fedora 20 - Updates
Source 0


Well, you really should be using "dnf repolist", but it's pretty
obvious you have F20 repos for the most part. You also seem to have
a local repo and that may be where your F23 stuff is coming from.

I'm still not sure why your fedup is not puking when you specify the
"--product" flag. It is NOT allowed with the current 0.9.2 versions,
so the first thing I'd do is sort out which fedup you're getting.

Could you possibly have an old fedup that's getting called instead of
the one in /bin (perhaps in /usr/local/bin or something)? You could
try "which fedup" to see which one is being called.

Second, I wouldn't even attempt an update to F22 from here. I would
upgrade to F21 first with the local repo disabled. You might be able
to disable it at the command line:

fedup --network 21 --disablerepo=\*local\*

or you may have to edit the repo config file and set "enabled=0" in
it for all the stanzas. Make sure you have a RELIABLE backup before you
attempt any of these upgrades.

However you disabled the local repo, if the upgrade is successful then
go through the whole distrosync and everything to make SURE it's an F21
system. Finally, you 

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Joe Zeff]

On 09/16/2015 10:40 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:


I know you said that rawhide isn't enabled, but that's really the only
likely explanation.  You may have installed or enabled some rawhide
repository to fetch the kernel src.rpm, and now yum related tools will
pull packages from that repository.


If that were true, wouldn't he be seeing rawhide packages in his regular 
updates?

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:

>
> If that were true, wouldn't he be seeing rawhide packages in his regular
> updates?
>
> Only if he let it remain enables as opposed to cherry picking updates by
temporarily enabling for a single update session.   If you do such things,
 running fedup probably isn't going to work out very well or atleast it is
not something that has been tested during the QA process.

Rahul
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Gordon Messmer]

On 09/15/2015 04:14 PM, jd1008 wrote:
So, my question remains: Why fc23  


yum repolist

I know you said that rawhide isn't enabled, but that's really the only 
likely explanation.  You may have installed or enabled some rawhide 
repository to fetch the kernel src.rpm, and now yum related tools will 
pull packages from that repository.


But since none of us can tell what state your system is in, a clean 
install of Fedora 22 is the best option.

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Rick Stevens]

On 09/15/2015 04:14 PM, jd1008 wrote:



On 09/15/2015 04:20 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:

On 09/15/2015 03:17 PM, jd1008 wrote:

Why
All the packages it downloaded are from the unreleased fedora 23.

For example, this is what it downloaded into
/var/cache/system-upgrade/fedora/packages/
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 a2jmidid-8-9.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aajohan-comfortaa-fonts-2.004-5.fc23.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aalib-devel-1.4.0-0.27.rc5.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aalib-libs-1.4.0-0.27.rc5.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.16-3.fc23.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 abiword-3.0.1-4.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 abrt-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
abrt-addon-ccpp-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
packages/abrt-addon-coredump-helper-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm

As you can see, all of them of length 0.

Is the repo of 22 being diverted to 23?


The correct update from F21 to F22 is:

fedup --network 22

fedup should have puked on "--product=nonproduct" as that's not a
supported option since F21.

Also check your repos.d files and make sure you haven't enabled rawhide.


Hi Rick,
None of rawhide repos are enabled.
The latest version of fedup in f21 is fedpkg-1.20-1.fc21.noarch.rpm


fedpkg is NOT fedup. fedpkg is to permit you to download sources from
koji or git.


# rpm -q fedup
fedup-0.9.2-1.fc21.noarch


I have the same version:

[root@prophead ~]# rpm -qa | grep fedup
fedup-0.9.2-1.fc21.noarch



# fedup  --network 22
usage: fedup  [options]
fedup: error:

This installation of Fedora does not belong to a product, so you
must provide the =PRODUCTNAME option to specify what product
you want to upgrade to. PRODUCTNAME should be one of:

  workstation: the default Fedora experience for laptops and desktops,
powered by GNOME.
  server: the default Fedora experience for servers
  cloud: a base image for use on public and private clouds
  nonproduct: choose this if none of the above apply; in particular,
choose this if you are using an alternate-desktop spin of Fedora

Selecting a product will also install its standard package-set in
addition to upgrading the packages already on your system. If you
prefer to maintain your current set of packages, select 'nonproduct'.

See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading for more information.


That's not what THAT version of fedup should report. It should look
like:

[root@prophead ~]# fedup --network 22 --product=nonproduct
usage: fedup  [options]
fedup: error: unrecognized arguments: --product=nonproduct

[root@prophead ~]# fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22
usage: fedup  [options]
fedup: error: unrecognized arguments: --product=nonproduct

(I did it twice, swapping around where you stuck "--product=nonproduct"
just to show you).

So you are running an incorrect version of fedup. Get that resolved
first. That's in the upgrade instructions. Also in the upgrade
instructions, they tell you that you MUST make sure you're running the
current system or you're going to get a bunch of very weird things
going on.

Right now it appears you have a very curious mix of F20 and F21 on your
machine and you're going to have problems trying to fedup.


However, when I set the product=workstation, it started
to download - but ALL the downloads were failing with messages
like these:

anaconda-core-23.19.2-2.fc23.x FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-23.19.2-2.fc23.x86_64 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-gui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-core-23.19.2-2.fc23.x FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-tui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
amtterm-1.3-10.fc23.x86_64.rpm FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-gui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-core-23.19.2-2.fc23.x FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-gui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-tui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
amtterm-1.3-10.fc23.x86_64.rpm FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-gui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA

My computer is connected to high speed internet, and am having no problems
browsing the web, and sending this email.

So, my question remains: Why fc23 


Again, you are running an old version of fedup, your machine is NOT a 
clean F21 system and most likely fedup is getting very, very confused.

As others have suggested:

1. Make a backup of your system.

2. Bring it up to current F21 standards using yum or dnf.
   You might even have to do a "dnf --distro-sync" to drag it kicking
   and screaming up to F21.

3. Make sure you're running the LATEST fedup and try the upgrade again,
 

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Susi Lehtola]

On 09/15/2015 04:14 PM, jd1008 wrote:

The correct update from F21 to F22 is:

fedup --network 22

fedup should have puked on "--product=nonproduct" as that's not a
supported option since F21.

Also check your repos.d files and make sure you haven't enabled rawhide.


Hi Rick,
None of rawhide repos are enabled.
The latest version of fedup in f21 is fedpkg-1.20-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
# rpm -q fedup
fedup-0.9.2-1.fc21.noarch


Now I'm confused. Quoting from your earlier message

On 09/14/2015 01:04 PM, jd1008 wrote:
> On a laptop with
> 02:00.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM43224 802.11a/b/g/n
> (rev 01)
> and kernel: kernel-4.3.0-0.rc0.git11.1
>
> and compiled modules:
> 
/lib/modules/4.3.0-0.rc0.git11.1.fc20.x86_64/kernel/drivers/net/phy/bcm7xxx.ko.xz 


>
> 
/lib/modules/4.3.0-0.rc0.git11.1.fc20.x86_64/kernel/drivers/net/phy/bcm87xx.ko.xz 



you seem to be running Fedora 20, not Fedora 21. Have you updated part 
of your system to Fedora 21? If that is the case, I agree with Gordon. 
You should do a clean install of Fedora 22.

--
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[jd1008]

On 09/15/2015 04:20 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:

On 09/15/2015 03:17 PM, jd1008 wrote:

Why
All the packages it downloaded are from the unreleased fedora 23.

For example, this is what it downloaded into
/var/cache/system-upgrade/fedora/packages/
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 a2jmidid-8-9.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aajohan-comfortaa-fonts-2.004-5.fc23.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aalib-devel-1.4.0-0.27.rc5.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aalib-libs-1.4.0-0.27.rc5.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.16-3.fc23.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 abiword-3.0.1-4.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 abrt-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
abrt-addon-ccpp-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
packages/abrt-addon-coredump-helper-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm

As you can see, all of them of length 0.

Is the repo of 22 being diverted to 23?


The correct update from F21 to F22 is:

fedup --network 22

fedup should have puked on "--product=nonproduct" as that's not a 
supported option since F21.


Also check your repos.d files and make sure you haven't enabled rawhide.


Hi Rick,
None of rawhide repos are enabled.
The latest version of fedup in f21 is fedpkg-1.20-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
# rpm -q fedup
fedup-0.9.2-1.fc21.noarch

# fedup  --network 22
usage: fedup  [options]
fedup: error:

This installation of Fedora does not belong to a product, so you
must provide the =PRODUCTNAME option to specify what product
you want to upgrade to. PRODUCTNAME should be one of:

 workstation: the default Fedora experience for laptops and desktops,
   powered by GNOME.
 server: the default Fedora experience for servers
 cloud: a base image for use on public and private clouds
 nonproduct: choose this if none of the above apply; in particular,
   choose this if you are using an alternate-desktop spin of Fedora

Selecting a product will also install its standard package-set in
addition to upgrading the packages already on your system. If you
prefer to maintain your current set of packages, select 'nonproduct'.

See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading for more information.

===

However, when I set the product=workstation, it started
to download - but ALL the downloads were failing with messages
like these:

anaconda-core-23.19.2-2.fc23.x FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-23.19.2-2.fc23.x86_64 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-gui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-core-23.19.2-2.fc23.x FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-tui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
amtterm-1.3-10.fc23.x86_64.rpm FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-gui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-core-23.19.2-2.fc23.x FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-gui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-tui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
amtterm-1.3-10.fc23.x86_64.rpm FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA
anaconda-gui-23.19.2-2.fc23.x8 FAILED ] 3.5 MB/s |  27 MB  00:24:40 ETA

My computer is connected to high speed internet, and am having no problems
browsing the web, and sending this email.

So, my question remains: Why fc23 

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Ed Greshko]

On 09/16/15 07:26, Susi Lehtola wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 04:14 PM, jd1008 wrote:
>>> The correct update from F21 to F22 is:
>>>
>>> fedup --network 22
>>>
>>> fedup should have puked on "--product=nonproduct" as that's not a
>>> supported option since F21.
>>>
>>> Also check your repos.d files and make sure you haven't enabled rawhide.
>>
>> Hi Rick,
>> None of rawhide repos are enabled.
>> The latest version of fedup in f21 is fedpkg-1.20-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
>> # rpm -q fedup
>> fedup-0.9.2-1.fc21.noarch
>
> Now I'm confused. Quoting from your earlier message
>
> On 09/14/2015 01:04 PM, jd1008 wrote:
> > On a laptop with
> > 02:00.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM43224 802.11a/b/g/n
> > (rev 01)
> > and kernel: kernel-4.3.0-0.rc0.git11.1
> >
> > and compiled modules:
> > /lib/modules/4.3.0-0.rc0.git11.1.fc20.x86_64/kernel/drivers/net/phy/bcm7xxx.ko.xz
> >
> > /lib/modules/4.3.0-0.rc0.git11.1.fc20.x86_64/kernel/drivers/net/phy/bcm87xx.ko.xz
>
> you seem to be running Fedora 20, not Fedora 21. Have you updated part of 
> your system to Fedora 21? If that is the case, I agree with Gordon. You 
> should do a clean install of Fedora 22.

And, if you noticed, the kernel he is using is recompiled for F20 from a 
downloaded srpm from koji which is targeted for F24.  So, who knows what other 
"modifications" have been done to this system? 


-- 
It seems most people that say they are "done talking about it" never really are 
until given the last word.
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup --product=nonproduct --network 22 is upgrading to the unreleased fc23 !!!

[Rick Stevens]

On 09/15/2015 03:17 PM, jd1008 wrote:

Why
All the packages it downloaded are from the unreleased fedora 23.

For example, this is what it downloaded into
/var/cache/system-upgrade/fedora/packages/
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 a2jmidid-8-9.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aajohan-comfortaa-fonts-2.004-5.fc23.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aalib-devel-1.4.0-0.27.rc5.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
aalib-libs-1.4.0-0.27.rc5.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.16-3.fc23.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 abiword-3.0.1-4.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12 abrt-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
abrt-addon-ccpp-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root jd  0 Sep 15 16:12
packages/abrt-addon-coredump-helper-2.6.2-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm

As you can see, all of them of length 0.

Is the repo of 22 being diverted to 23?


The correct update from F21 to F22 is:

fedup --network 22

fedup should have puked on "--product=nonproduct" as that's not a 
supported option since F21.


Also check your repos.d files and make sure you haven't enabled rawhide.
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried. -
--
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup half-complete

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/23/15 19:14, Timothy Murphy wrote:
 I followed the instructions at
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum
 to upgrade my second-best laptop from Fedora-21 to 22.
 The upgrade failed halfway through with memory warnings of some type.
 I ran fedora-upgrade again, and this time it installed all the packages,
 but hung halfway through cleanup.

 Rather surprisingly, the system booted into a version
 that seems to be a mixture of Fedora-21 and Fedora-22.
 /etc/fedora-release says it is 22, but the kernel is 21.

 Running dnf distro-sync and dnf update gives
 
 [tim@rose ~]$ sudo dnf distro-sync
 Last metadata expiration check performed 2:59:30 ago on Sat Aug 22 17:53:07 
 2015.
 Error: package libksysguard-common-5.3.2-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts with 
 ksysguard  5.2 provided by ksysguard-4.11.14-1.fc21.x86_64.
 package kf5-kactivities-5.12.0-1.fc22.x86_64 requires kf5-kactivities-
 libs(x86-64) = 5.12.0-1.fc22, but none of the providers can be installed.
 package dnf-yum-0.6.1-1.fc21.noarch requires dnf = 0.6.1-1.fc21, but none of 
 the providers can be installed
 (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting 
 packages)
 [tim@rose ~]$ sudo dnf update
 Last metadata expiration check performed 2:59:40 ago on Sat Aug 22 17:53:07 
 2015.
 Dependencies resolved.
 Nothing to do.
 Complete!
 

 Any suggestions?
 Should I just forget this, and install Fedora-22 in the usual way?


I'd probably start by running package-cleanup to see if there were any dupes.

Then, when running update I'd add the --best option since I think without it 
dependency issues are silenced.

-- 
It seems most people that say they are done talking about it never really are 
until given the last word.
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup half-complete

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:14:32 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:

 I followed the instructions at
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum
 to upgrade my second-best laptop from Fedora-21 to 22.
 The upgrade failed halfway through with memory warnings of some type.

Isn't memory warnings of some type too vague to even comment on it?
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup 20 - 22 - improper X rendering

[fedora2015]

On 08/08/2015 09:42 PM, Rich Emberson wrote:

I used to update:
  fedup --network 22 --product=nonproduct

Coming up in graphical target as default.target, KDE X does
not render properly.
With right click I a small box appears under the cursor,
navigating to what I guess is the first menu item, I can
start a console.
A box appears. I click into it and type:
  xterm
Another box appears and I can launch another xterm from it.
At any of the xterm's (and console) I can enter commands.
The area where the xterm prints my input text and any resulting
output text is drawn ... but not the rest of the xterm (which
remains the background image).
I can find the top of the xterm box and move it ... it leaves
a trail of sides of the xterm as it is moved.
Any xterm over which I move another xterm, does not refresh
it self.

Basically, X is unusable.

# /sbin/lshw -c display
   *-display
description: VGA compatible controller
product: G73 [GeForce 7300 GT]
vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
physical id: 0
bus info: pci@:01:00.0
version: a1
width: 64 bits
clock: 33MHz
capabilities: pm msi pciexpress vga_controller bus_master
cap_list rom
configuration: driver=nouveau latency=0
resources: irq:29 memory:fd00-fdff
memory:d000-dfff memory:fc00-fcff ioport:bc00(size=128)
memory:fe8e-fe8f

No nvidia drivers are installed:
  rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep -i nvi
nothing

  rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep kmod
akmods 0.5.4-1.fc22 noarch
kmodtool 1-23.fc22 noarch
libmikmod 3.3.7-1.fc22 x86_64
kmod-libs 21-1.fc22 x86_64
kmod 21-1.fc22 x86_64


The contents of /etc/X11 is the same post upgrade to fedora 22
as it was for fedora 20 (I kept a copy of 20's /etc/X11 directory).

In /var/log/Xorg.0.log the same (EE) and (WW) messages
appear in the fedora 22 as in the fedora 20 log (again, I kept
a copy).
The only difference that pops out is that for the fedora 20
Xorg.0.log the bottom has:

[ 22527.418] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
[ 22527.418] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1680x1050x0.0  119.00  1680
1728 1760 1840  1050 1052 1058 1100 -hsync -vsync (64.7 kHz eP)

but for the 22 Xorg.0.log the bottom has:


[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 2560x1080x0.0  185.58  2560
2624 2688 2784  1080 1083 1093  +hsync -vsync (66.7 kHz eP)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 800x600x0.0   40.00  800 840
968 1056  600 601 605 628 +hsync +vsync (37.9 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 640x480x0.0   31.50  640 656
720 840  480 481 484 500 -hsync -vsync (37.5 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 640x480x0.0   25.18  640 656
752 800  480 490 492 525 -hsync -vsync (31.5 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 720x400x0.0   28.32  720 738
846 900  400 412 414 449 -hsync +vsync (31.5 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x1024x0.0  135.00  1280
1296 1440 1688  1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync (80.0 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1024x768x0.0   78.75  1024 1040
1136 1312  768 769 772 800 +hsync +vsync (60.0 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1024x768x0.0   65.00  1024 1048
1184 1344  768 771 777 806 -hsync -vsync (48.4 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 800x600x0.0   49.50  800 816
896 1056  600 601 604 625 +hsync +vsync (46.9 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x800x0.0   71.00  1280 1328
1360 1440  800 803 809 823 +hsync -vsync (49.3 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1680x1050x0.0  119.00  1680
1728 1760 1840  1050 1053 1059 1080 +hsync -vsync (64.7 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1152x864x0.0  108.00  1152 1216
1344 1600  864 865 868 900 +hsync +vsync (67.5 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x1024x0.0  108.00  1280
1328 1440 1688  1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync (64.0 kHz e)
[81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1920x1080x60.0  172.80  1920
2040 2248 2576  1080 1081 1084 1118 -hsync +vsync (67.1 kHz e)

which is to say, a lot more gathered Modelines ... whatever that means.

The nouveau entries in the Xorg.0.log are very similar:

fedora 20
.
[1.801451] nouveau  [ DRM] 0xC272: Parsing digital output script
table
[1.903954] nouveau  [ DRM] MM: using M2MF for buffer copies
[1.903963] nouveau  [ DRM] Setting dpms mode 3 on TV encoder
(output 3)
[1.959109] nouveau  [ DRM] allocated 2560x1080 fb: 0x9000, bo
88003693ec00
[1.959207] fbcon: nouveaufb (fb0) is primary device
[1.982601] nouveau  [ DRM] 0xC272: Parsing digital output script
table
[2.083944] Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 320x67
[2.085254] nouveau :01:00.0: fb0: nouveaufb frame buffer device
[2.085255] nouveau :01:00.0: registered panic notifier
[2.097031] [drm] Initialized nouveau 1.2.1 20120801 for :01:00.0

Re: fedup 20 - 22 - improper X rendering

[Rich Emberson]

Tried the Fedora 22 Live KDE dvd I created just to see if it would come
up
Well, its X - KDE had the same rendering problem. Foreground images do
not fully refresh their part of the screen.

As said previously, X applications launched from remote machines run just
fine
on the remote machine.

So, somehow Fedora 22's nouveau-based rendering seems to have an issue ..
or something

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Rich Emberson emberson.r...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I used to update:
  fedup --network 22 --product=nonproduct

 Coming up in graphical target as default.target, KDE X does
 not render properly.
 With right click I a small box appears under the cursor,
 navigating to what I guess is the first menu item, I can
 start a console.
 A box appears. I click into it and type:
  xterm
 Another box appears and I can launch another xterm from it.
 At any of the xterm's (and console) I can enter commands.
 The area where the xterm prints my input text and any resulting
 output text is drawn ... but not the rest of the xterm (which
 remains the background image).
 I can find the top of the xterm box and move it ... it leaves
 a trail of sides of the xterm as it is moved.
 Any xterm over which I move another xterm, does not refresh
 it self.

 Basically, X is unusable.

 # /sbin/lshw -c display
   *-display
description: VGA compatible controller
product: G73 [GeForce 7300 GT]
vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
physical id: 0
bus info: pci@:01:00.0
version: a1
width: 64 bits
clock: 33MHz
capabilities: pm msi pciexpress vga_controller bus_master cap_list
 rom
configuration: driver=nouveau latency=0
resources: irq:29 memory:fd00-fdff memory:d000-dfff
 memory:fc00-fcff ioport:bc00(size=128) memory:fe8e-fe8f

 No nvidia drivers are installed:
  rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep -i nvi
 nothing

  rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep kmod
 akmods 0.5.4-1.fc22 noarch
 kmodtool 1-23.fc22 noarch
 libmikmod 3.3.7-1.fc22 x86_64
 kmod-libs 21-1.fc22 x86_64
 kmod 21-1.fc22 x86_64


 The contents of /etc/X11 is the same post upgrade to fedora 22
 as it was for fedora 20 (I kept a copy of 20's /etc/X11 directory).

 In /var/log/Xorg.0.log the same (EE) and (WW) messages
 appear in the fedora 22 as in the fedora 20 log (again, I kept
 a copy).
 The only difference that pops out is that for the fedora 20
 Xorg.0.log the bottom has:

 [ 22527.418] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
 [ 22527.418] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1680x1050x0.0  119.00  1680 1728
 1760 1840  1050 1052 1058 1100 -hsync -vsync (64.7 kHz eP)

 but for the 22 Xorg.0.log the bottom has:


 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 2560x1080x0.0  185.58  2560 2624
 2688 2784  1080 1083 1093  +hsync -vsync (66.7 kHz eP)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 800x600x0.0   40.00  800 840 968
 1056  600 601 605 628 +hsync +vsync (37.9 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 640x480x0.0   31.50  640 656 720
 840  480 481 484 500 -hsync -vsync (37.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 640x480x0.0   25.18  640 656 752
 800  480 490 492 525 -hsync -vsync (31.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 720x400x0.0   28.32  720 738 846
 900  400 412 414 449 -hsync +vsync (31.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x1024x0.0  135.00  1280 1296
 1440 1688  1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync (80.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1024x768x0.0   78.75  1024 1040
 1136 1312  768 769 772 800 +hsync +vsync (60.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1024x768x0.0   65.00  1024 1048
 1184 1344  768 771 777 806 -hsync -vsync (48.4 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 800x600x0.0   49.50  800 816 896
 1056  600 601 604 625 +hsync +vsync (46.9 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x800x0.0   71.00  1280 1328
 1360 1440  800 803 809 823 +hsync -vsync (49.3 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1680x1050x0.0  119.00  1680 1728
 1760 1840  1050 1053 1059 1080 +hsync -vsync (64.7 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1152x864x0.0  108.00  1152 1216
 1344 1600  864 865 868 900 +hsync +vsync (67.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x1024x0.0  108.00  1280 1328
 1440 1688  1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync (64.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1920x1080x60.0  172.80  1920 2040
 2248 2576  1080 1081 1084 1118 -hsync +vsync (67.1 kHz e)

 which is to say, a lot more gathered Modelines ... whatever that means.

 The nouveau entries in the Xorg.0.log are very similar:

 fedora 20
 .
 [1.801451] nouveau  [ DRM] 0xC272: Parsing digital output script
 table
 [1.903954] nouveau  [ DRM] MM: using M2MF for buffer copies
 [1.903963] nouveau  [ DRM] Setting dpms mode 3 on TV encoder
 (output 3)
 [

Re: fedup 20 - 22 - improper X rendering

[Rich Emberson]

I might add that logging in remotely to this machine and then launching an
X-application
that displays on the remote machine works.
So, it seems to be purely a X rendering issue on the machine, the X
protocol works fine.
Richard

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Rich Emberson emberson.r...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I used to update:
  fedup --network 22 --product=nonproduct

 Coming up in graphical target as default.target, KDE X does
 not render properly.
 With right click I a small box appears under the cursor,
 navigating to what I guess is the first menu item, I can
 start a console.
 A box appears. I click into it and type:
  xterm
 Another box appears and I can launch another xterm from it.
 At any of the xterm's (and console) I can enter commands.
 The area where the xterm prints my input text and any resulting
 output text is drawn ... but not the rest of the xterm (which
 remains the background image).
 I can find the top of the xterm box and move it ... it leaves
 a trail of sides of the xterm as it is moved.
 Any xterm over which I move another xterm, does not refresh
 it self.

 Basically, X is unusable.

 # /sbin/lshw -c display
   *-display
description: VGA compatible controller
product: G73 [GeForce 7300 GT]
vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
physical id: 0
bus info: pci@:01:00.0
version: a1
width: 64 bits
clock: 33MHz
capabilities: pm msi pciexpress vga_controller bus_master cap_list
 rom
configuration: driver=nouveau latency=0
resources: irq:29 memory:fd00-fdff memory:d000-dfff
 memory:fc00-fcff ioport:bc00(size=128) memory:fe8e-fe8f

 No nvidia drivers are installed:
  rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep -i nvi
 nothing

  rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep kmod
 akmods 0.5.4-1.fc22 noarch
 kmodtool 1-23.fc22 noarch
 libmikmod 3.3.7-1.fc22 x86_64
 kmod-libs 21-1.fc22 x86_64
 kmod 21-1.fc22 x86_64


 The contents of /etc/X11 is the same post upgrade to fedora 22
 as it was for fedora 20 (I kept a copy of 20's /etc/X11 directory).

 In /var/log/Xorg.0.log the same (EE) and (WW) messages
 appear in the fedora 22 as in the fedora 20 log (again, I kept
 a copy).
 The only difference that pops out is that for the fedora 20
 Xorg.0.log the bottom has:

 [ 22527.418] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
 [ 22527.418] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1680x1050x0.0  119.00  1680 1728
 1760 1840  1050 1052 1058 1100 -hsync -vsync (64.7 kHz eP)

 but for the 22 Xorg.0.log the bottom has:


 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 2560x1080x0.0  185.58  2560 2624
 2688 2784  1080 1083 1093  +hsync -vsync (66.7 kHz eP)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 800x600x0.0   40.00  800 840 968
 1056  600 601 605 628 +hsync +vsync (37.9 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 640x480x0.0   31.50  640 656 720
 840  480 481 484 500 -hsync -vsync (37.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 640x480x0.0   25.18  640 656 752
 800  480 490 492 525 -hsync -vsync (31.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 720x400x0.0   28.32  720 738 846
 900  400 412 414 449 -hsync +vsync (31.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x1024x0.0  135.00  1280 1296
 1440 1688  1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync (80.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1024x768x0.0   78.75  1024 1040
 1136 1312  768 769 772 800 +hsync +vsync (60.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1024x768x0.0   65.00  1024 1048
 1184 1344  768 771 777 806 -hsync -vsync (48.4 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 800x600x0.0   49.50  800 816 896
 1056  600 601 604 625 +hsync +vsync (46.9 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x800x0.0   71.00  1280 1328
 1360 1440  800 803 809 823 +hsync -vsync (49.3 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1680x1050x0.0  119.00  1680 1728
 1760 1840  1050 1053 1059 1080 +hsync -vsync (64.7 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1152x864x0.0  108.00  1152 1216
 1344 1600  864 865 868 900 +hsync +vsync (67.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x1024x0.0  108.00  1280 1328
 1440 1688  1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync (64.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1920x1080x60.0  172.80  1920 2040
 2248 2576  1080 1081 1084 1118 -hsync +vsync (67.1 kHz e)

 which is to say, a lot more gathered Modelines ... whatever that means.

 The nouveau entries in the Xorg.0.log are very similar:

 fedora 20
 .
 [1.801451] nouveau  [ DRM] 0xC272: Parsing digital output script
 table
 [1.903954] nouveau  [ DRM] MM: using M2MF for buffer copies
 [1.903963] nouveau  [ DRM] Setting dpms mode 3 on TV encoder
 (output 3)
 [1.959109] nouveau  [ DRM] allocated 2560x1080 fb: 0x9000, bo
 88003693ec00
 [1.959207] fbcon: nouveaufb (fb0) is primary device
 [1.982601] 

Re: fedup 20 - 22 - improper X rendering

[Rich Emberson]

I am not using the nvidia card. I am using nouveau.

# /usr/sbin/akmods --force
No akmod packages found, nothing to do.[  OK  ]

 rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep kmod
akmods 0.5.4-1.fc22 noarch
kmodtool 1-23.fc22 noarch
libmikmod 3.3.7-1.fc22 x86_64
kmod-libs 21-1.fc22 x86_64
kmod 21-1.fc22 x86_64


On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:34 AM, fedora2015 fedora2...@videotron.ca wrote:

 On 08/08/2015 09:42 PM, Rich Emberson wrote:

 I used to update:
   fedup --network 22 --product=nonproduct

 Coming up in graphical target as default.target, KDE X does
 not render properly.
 With right click I a small box appears under the cursor,
 navigating to what I guess is the first menu item, I can
 start a console.
 A box appears. I click into it and type:
   xterm
 Another box appears and I can launch another xterm from it.
 At any of the xterm's (and console) I can enter commands.
 The area where the xterm prints my input text and any resulting
 output text is drawn ... but not the rest of the xterm (which
 remains the background image).
 I can find the top of the xterm box and move it ... it leaves
 a trail of sides of the xterm as it is moved.
 Any xterm over which I move another xterm, does not refresh
 it self.

 Basically, X is unusable.

 # /sbin/lshw -c display
*-display
 description: VGA compatible controller
 product: G73 [GeForce 7300 GT]
 vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
 physical id: 0
 bus info: pci@:01:00.0
 version: a1
 width: 64 bits
 clock: 33MHz
 capabilities: pm msi pciexpress vga_controller bus_master
 cap_list rom
 configuration: driver=nouveau latency=0
 resources: irq:29 memory:fd00-fdff
 memory:d000-dfff memory:fc00-fcff ioport:bc00(size=128)
 memory:fe8e-fe8f

 No nvidia drivers are installed:
   rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep -i nvi
 nothing

   rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep kmod
 akmods 0.5.4-1.fc22 noarch
 kmodtool 1-23.fc22 noarch
 libmikmod 3.3.7-1.fc22 x86_64
 kmod-libs 21-1.fc22 x86_64
 kmod 21-1.fc22 x86_64


 The contents of /etc/X11 is the same post upgrade to fedora 22
 as it was for fedora 20 (I kept a copy of 20's /etc/X11 directory).

 In /var/log/Xorg.0.log the same (EE) and (WW) messages
 appear in the fedora 22 as in the fedora 20 log (again, I kept
 a copy).
 The only difference that pops out is that for the fedora 20
 Xorg.0.log the bottom has:

 [ 22527.418] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
 [ 22527.418] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1680x1050x0.0  119.00  1680
 1728 1760 1840  1050 1052 1058 1100 -hsync -vsync (64.7 kHz eP)

 but for the 22 Xorg.0.log the bottom has:


 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 2560x1080x0.0  185.58  2560
 2624 2688 2784  1080 1083 1093  +hsync -vsync (66.7 kHz eP)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 800x600x0.0   40.00  800 840
 968 1056  600 601 605 628 +hsync +vsync (37.9 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 640x480x0.0   31.50  640 656
 720 840  480 481 484 500 -hsync -vsync (37.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 640x480x0.0   25.18  640 656
 752 800  480 490 492 525 -hsync -vsync (31.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 720x400x0.0   28.32  720 738
 846 900  400 412 414 449 -hsync +vsync (31.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x1024x0.0  135.00  1280
 1296 1440 1688  1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync (80.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1024x768x0.0   78.75  1024 1040
 1136 1312  768 769 772 800 +hsync +vsync (60.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1024x768x0.0   65.00  1024 1048
 1184 1344  768 771 777 806 -hsync -vsync (48.4 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 800x600x0.0   49.50  800 816
 896 1056  600 601 604 625 +hsync +vsync (46.9 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x800x0.0   71.00  1280 1328
 1360 1440  800 803 809 823 +hsync -vsync (49.3 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1680x1050x0.0  119.00  1680
 1728 1760 1840  1050 1053 1059 1080 +hsync -vsync (64.7 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1152x864x0.0  108.00  1152 1216
 1344 1600  864 865 868 900 +hsync +vsync (67.5 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1280x1024x0.0  108.00  1280
 1328 1440 1688  1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync (64.0 kHz e)
 [81.512] (II) NOUVEAU(0): Modeline 1920x1080x60.0  172.80  1920
 2040 2248 2576  1080 1081 1084 1118 -hsync +vsync (67.1 kHz e)

 which is to say, a lot more gathered Modelines ... whatever that means.

 The nouveau entries in the Xorg.0.log are very similar:

 fedora 20
 .
 [1.801451] nouveau  [ DRM] 0xC272: Parsing digital output script
 table
 [1.903954] nouveau  [ DRM] MM: using M2MF for buffer copies
 [1.903963] nouveau  [ DRM] Setting dpms mode 3 on TV 

Re: fedup 20 - 21 - xinit - KDE - open /dev/fb0: No such file or directory

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/28/15 11:41, richard emberson wrote:
 ]# journalctl -b 0 | grep -i mouse
 Jul 27 19:52:02 localhost.localdomain kernel: mousedev: PS/2 mouse device 
 common for all mice
 Jul 27 19:52:02 localhost.localdomain kernel: usb 7-1: Product: USB Optical 
 Mouse
 Jul 27 19:52:02 localhost.localdomain kernel: input: PixArt USB Optical Mouse 
 as 
 /devices/pci:00/:00:1d.1/usb7/7-1/7-1:1.0/0003:093A:2510.0001/input/input6
 Jul 27 19:52:02 localhost.localdomain kernel: hid-generic 
 0003:093A:2510.0001: input,hidraw0: USB HID v1.11 Mouse [PixArt USB Optical 
 Mouse] on usb-:00:1d.1-1/input0
 Jul 27 19:52:02 localhost.localdomain kernel: psmouse serio1: synaptics: 
 Touchpad model: 1, fw: 6.2, id: 0x81a0b1, caps: 0xa04711/0x20/0x0, board 
 id: 0, fw id: 496485
 Jul 27 19:52:49 localhost.localdomain kernel: input: MCE IR Keyboard/Mouse 
 (ene_ir) as /devices/virtual/input/input10
 Jul 27 19:52:49 localhost.localdomain kernel: IR MCE Keyboard/mouse protocol 
 handler initialized
 # journalctl -b 0 | grep -i keyb
 Jul 27 19:52:02 localhost.localdomain kernel: input: AT Translated Set 2 
 keyboard as /devices/platform/i8042/serio0/input/input3
 Jul 27 19:52:49 localhost.localdomain kernel: input: MCE IR Keyboard/Mouse 
 (ene_ir) as /devices/virtual/input/input10
 Jul 27 19:52:49 localhost.localdomain kernel: IR MCE Keyboard/mouse protocol 
 handler initialized

 I appreciate the help. I've been downloading the fedora 22
 workstation and server dvds just in case.
 Re-installing my laptops is not much of a problem, its my home
 servers where I want to be sure prior to going from fedora x to x+1.
 Also, I'd like to keep using KDE, but, at least for this laptop,
 that may not be possible. 

Well, that all looks in order.

So, you are able to boot and you do get a graphical login screen, but you don't 
get a cursor and you can't type a password.

You looked in the fedup log, located in /var/log, and see no errors.

I'm fairly sure the lack of XINPUT lines in the Xorg log is tellingjust 
have no idea what could be the issue.

I've not had a failure in fedup such as this and I've been using it for the 
past several releases.


-- 
If I wanted a blog or social media I'd go elsewhere
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup 20 - 21 - xinit - KDE - open /dev/fb0: No such file or directory

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/27/15 08:00, Rich Emberson wrote:
 Still no mouse or keyboard. Don't know if this is the problem.

 from /var/log/Xorg.0.log

Well, the /dev/fb0 is not related to your keyboard/mouse problem since that 
device is a frame buffer which is related to video.  My reason for suggesting 
what I did is that I only see this error on my systems when the nVidia drivers 
are not installed.

What type of keyboard/mouse do you have?  PS2, USB, Bluetooth?

If you

grep input device /var/log/Xorg.0.log | grep XINPUT

what do you get?

On one system I have a USB keyboard/mouse combination and I see...

[egreshko@meimei log]$ grep input device Xorg.0.log | grep XINPUT
[338349.680] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Power Button (type: 
KEYBOARD, id 6)
[338349.680] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Power Button (type: 
KEYBOARD, id 7)
[338349.682] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Logitech M310 (type: 
MOUSE, id 8)
[338349.683] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Logitech K520 (type: 
KEYBOARD, id 9)

While on my laptop I see

[egreshko@acer log]$  grep input device Xorg.0.log | grep XINPUT
[64.585] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Power Button (type: 
KEYBOARD, id 6)
[64.594] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Video Bus (type: 
KEYBOARD, id 7)
[64.606] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Power Button (type: 
KEYBOARD, id 8)
[64.615] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Sleep Button (type: 
KEYBOARD, id 9)
[64.627] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Acer CrystalEye webcam 
(type: KEYBOARD, id 10)
[64.695] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device Logitech Optical USB 
Mouse (type: MOUSE, id 11)
[64.759] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device AT Translated Set 2 
keyboard (type: KEYBOARD, id 12)
[64.777] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device SynPS/2 Synaptics 
TouchPad (type: TOUCHPAD, id 13)
[64.795] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device SynPS/2 Synaptics 
TouchPad (type: TOUCHPAD, id 14)


But, rather than picking out bits and pieces of your Xorg log file, maybe post 
it somewhere for everyone to see?

-- 
If I wanted a blog or social media I'd go elsewhere
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup 20 - 21 - xinit - KDE - open /dev/fb0: No such file or directory

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/28/15 10:57, richard emberson wrote:
 See below

 On 07/27/2015 07:33 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
 On 07/28/15 09:50, richard emberson wrote:

 grep input device /var/log/Xorg.0.log | grep XINPUT
 nothing found

 Its a Jetta laptop with touch pad (which, like the usb optical mouse, also 
 does not work) and builtin keyboard.

 What is in your /etc/X11/xorg.conf ?   It should only contain
 I do not have a xorg.conf file, but I do have a nvidia-xorg.conf
 which is the same as your xorg.conf file you showed below.
 (but, if I change the name of it from nvidia-xorg.conf to
 xorg.conf, I still have no mouse/keyboard).

 # RPM Fusion - nvidia-xorg.conf
 #
 Section Device
  Identifier  Videocard0
  Driver  nvidia
 EndSection

 Also, what files do you have in the /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d directory?

 # ls -l xorg.conf.d/
 total 12
 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 108 Jan 11  2015 00-avoid-glamor.conf
 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 232 Jan 13  2015 00-keyboard.conf
 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 178 Jan 11  2015 99-nvidia.conf



FWIW, all of my systems report something for XINPUT in the Xorg log...

Also, what do you get for these commands?

journalctl -b 0 | grep -i mouse
journalctl -b 0 | grep -i keyb

Sadly, I'm running out of ideas...






-- 
If I wanted a blog or social media I'd go elsewhere
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup 20 - 21 - xinit - KDE - open /dev/fb0: No such file or directory

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/28/15 09:50, richard emberson wrote:

 grep input device /var/log/Xorg.0.log | grep XINPUT
 nothing found

 Its a Jetta laptop with touch pad (which, like the usb optical mouse, also 
 does not work) and builtin keyboard.

What is in your /etc/X11/xorg.conf ?   It should only contain

# RPM Fusion - nvidia-xorg.conf
#
Section Device
Identifier  Videocard0
Driver  nvidia
EndSection

Also, what files do you have in the /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d directory?

[egreshko@meimei X11]$ ls -l xorg.conf.d/
total 12
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 161 Dec 26  2012 00-anaconda-keyboard.conf
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 108 Dec  2  2013 00-avoid-glamor.conf
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 178 Feb  7  2014 99-nvidia.conf

I find the following odd in your log file

 [ 10029.383] (==) Matched nvidia as autoconfigured driver 0
 [ 10029.383] (==) Matched nouveau as autoconfigured driver 1
 [ 10029.383] (==) Matched nv as autoconfigured driver 2
 [ 10029.383] (==) Matched nouveau as autoconfigured driver 3
 [ 10029.383] (==) Matched nv as autoconfigured driver 4
 [ 10029.383] (==) Matched modesetting as autoconfigured driver 5
 [ 10029.383] (==) Matched fbdev as autoconfigured driver 6
 [ 10029.383] (==) Matched vesa as autoconfigured driver 7

I don't see any mention of nouveau in my log files except in the kernel command 
line.



-- 
If I wanted a blog or social media I'd go elsewhere
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup 20 - 21 - xinit - KDE - open /dev/fb0: No such file or directory

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/27/15 08:00, Rich Emberson wrote:
 Still no mouse or keyboard. Don't know if this is the problem.

 from /var/log/Xorg.0.log
 START
 [96.019] (II) Loading sub module fb
 [96.019] (II) LoadModule: fb
 [96.020] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/libfb.so
 [96.030] (II) Module fb: vendor=X.Org Foundation
 [96.030]compiled for 1.17.2, module version = 1.0.0
 [96.030]ABI class: X.Org ANSI C Emulation, version 0.4
 [96.030] (WW) Unresolved symbol: fbGetGCPrivateKey
 [96.030] (II) Loading sub module wfb
 [96.030] (II) LoadModule: wfb
 [96.030] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/libwfb.so
 [96.041] (II) Module wfb: vendor=X.Org Foundation
 [96.041]compiled for 1.17.2, module version = 1.0.0
 [96.041]ABI class: X.Org ANSI C Emulation, version 0.4
 [96.041] (II) Loading sub module ramdac
 [96.041] (II) LoadModule: ramdac
 [96.041] (II) Module ramdac already built-in
 [96.068] (WW) Falling back to old probe method for modesetting
 [96.068] (WW) Falling back to old probe method for fbdev
 [96.068] (II) Loading sub module fbdevhw
 [96.068] (II) LoadModule: fbdevhw
 [96.068] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/libfbdevhw.so
 [96.082] (II) Module fbdevhw: vendor=X.Org Foundation
 [96.082]compiled for 1.17.2, module version = 0.0.2
 [96.082]ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 19.0
 [96.082] (EE) open /dev/fb0: No such file or directory
 [96.082] (WW) Falling back to old probe method for vesa
 [96.082] (II) NVIDIA(0): Creating default Display subsection in Screen 
 section
 Default Screen Section for depth/fbbpp 24/32
 [96.082] (==) NVIDIA(0): Depth 24, (==) framebuffer bpp 32
 [96.082] (==) NVIDIA(0): RGB weight 888
 [96.082] (==) NVIDIA(0): Default visual is TrueColor

Oh, I see you are using the nVidia drivers.  From rpmfusion?  Using the 
akmod-nvidia package as well?

If you are, you need to be aware that currently there is a problem with dnf 
keeping the rpmdb locked when the kmod-nvidia package for the new kernels are 
built.  This will also result in them not being built during fedup.

Check the log file /var/cache/akmods/akmods.log for errors. 

A common way to fix the problem is to run this command as root

/usr/sbin/akmods --force   and then reboot.


-- 
If I wanted a blog or social media I'd go elsewhere
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup 20 - 21 - 22 - Plasma closed unexpectedly

[Joe Zeff]

On 07/25/2015 07:01 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:

After reboot, login from a different machine and create a fresh user.  Then 
login as that new user to see if you have the same issue.


Either that or simply change to a text console without logging in at the 
GUI.  And, while you're at it, activate the Magic SysRq key and test it 
(Different mobos require different combinations of keys to activate it.) 
so that if it locks up again, you can reboot easier.

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup 20 - 21 - No X

[stan]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:37:10 -0700
Rich Emberson emberson.r...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ah, fedora upgrades using fedup ...
 
 Starting with Fedora 20, did
yum update
 and then
fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct
 Took a while but there were no issues but
 remember, as root
export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin
 or use
su -
 to become root otherwise fedup has an issue.
 
 So, now rebooted and it started.
 I have all my machines in multi-user mode just
 in case there is an issue with X.
 Now tried to start X ... and there was an issue.
[snip]
 [2.969504] fbcon: nouveaufb (fb0) is primary device
 [3.284089] nouveau :06:00.0: fb0: nouveaufb frame buffer
 device [3.284091] nouveau :06:00.0: registered panic notifier
 [3.290053] [drm] Initialized nouveau 1.2.1 20120801 for
 :06:00.0 on minor 0
 END dmesg
 
 So, fedup somehow blew away something.
 The Question is what?
 
 rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{ARCH}\n' | grep kmod
 kmod-libs 19-1.fc21 x86_64
 kmod 19-1.fc21 x86_64
 
 What did fedup change and how can I recover?

If you're using kmod, that means you've been using the rpmfusion nvidia
binary driver, right?  But it looks like the kernel is trying to use the
nouveau open source driver.  They're incompatible.

Maybe you need to set up to use the nvidia binary blob again.  I think
this involves blacklisting nouveau and installing the nvidia driver for
your kernel.  There should be instructions you can find online, or in
the archives of this list, for how to do this.

-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup 20 - 21 - 22 - Plasma closed unexpectedly

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/26/15 09:51, Rich Emberson wrote:
 X starts but there is no mouse control (pointer on screen
 but the mouse does not move it) and after a minute or
 less I get an widget stating that the Plasma desktop
 closed unexpectedly.

 I have to login from another machine to do a reboot.

You're a KDE user and quite a bit has changed.  One question and one 
suggestion

Q.  Just for information...  Are you using kdm or sddm as your display manager?

Suggestion

After reboot, login from a different machine and create a fresh user.  Then 
login as that new user to see if you have the same issue.

-- 
If I wanted a blog or social media I'd go elsewhere
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup to F22: No System Upgrade in GRUB menu

[Rick Stevens]

On 06/03/2015 02:44 PM, Max Pyziur wrote:


Greetings,

I tried to upgrade an x86_64 Intel desktop today per the instructions
located here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F


and

having successfully done an i386 Dell laptop recently.

On reboot, there was no System Upgrade choice in the GRUB menu.

I reviewed the instructions, which advised rebuilding grub (the
assumption was that the grub was incompatible because it was from
another Linux installation; in my case it was fresh install of F21).

The commands that were issued (from the instructions):
  grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
 grub2-install /dev/sda (replace /dev/sda by any other device you
prefer to boot from)  (in my case /dev/sda1)

I rebooted, and I was back in F21.


grub2-install /dev/sda1 would put the grub loader into the boot
sector of the first partition (possibly your /boot or /
filesystem)--NOT the MBR of the drive.

The machine boots from the MBR of the first drive. That's why you use
/dev/sda and not /dev/sda1 (put the boot on the MBR of the drive,
not the partition).
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-  Tempt not the dragons of fate, since thou art crunchy and taste   -
- good with ketchup. -
--
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup to F22: No System Upgrade in GRUB menu

[Max Pyziur]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Rick Stevens wrote:


On 06/03/2015 02:44 PM, Max Pyziur wrote:


 Greetings,

 I tried to upgrade an x86_64 Intel desktop today per the instructions
 located here:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F


 and

 having successfully done an i386 Dell laptop recently.

 On reboot, there was no System Upgrade choice in the GRUB menu.

 I reviewed the instructions, which advised rebuilding grub (the
 assumption was that the grub was incompatible because it was from
 another Linux installation; in my case it was fresh install of F21).

 The commands that were issued (from the instructions):
  grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
  grub2-install /dev/sda (replace /dev/sda by any other device you
 prefer to boot from)  (in my case /dev/sda1)

 I rebooted, and I was back in F21.


grub2-install /dev/sda1 would put the grub loader into the boot
sector of the first partition (possibly your /boot or /
filesystem)--NOT the MBR of the drive.

The machine boots from the MBR of the first drive. That's why you use
/dev/sda and not /dev/sda1 (put the boot on the MBR of the drive,
not the partition).


Thanks for the quick reply. I repeated the process per your correction. 
However, my bootloader reads something like Linux with Fedup as the 
first choice.


After choosing that there is no system upgrade; rather, the machine 
returns to its regular desktop settings


In a terminal window, the following shows up:
root@brill /var/cache/system-upgrade uname -a
Linux brill 4.0.4-301.fc22.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu May 21 13:10:33 UTC 2015 
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux


Should I restart the fedup process (two hours+ of download for 2751 
packages) or are there just a few steps that could be retraced in order to 
resume the system upgrade?


Thanks again,

Max Pyziur
p...@brama.com
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup to F22: No System Upgrade in GRUB menu

[Rick Stevens]

On 06/03/2015 03:12 PM, Max Pyziur wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Rick Stevens wrote:


On 06/03/2015 02:44 PM, Max Pyziur wrote:


 Greetings,

 I tried to upgrade an x86_64 Intel desktop today per the instructions
 located here:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F



 and

 having successfully done an i386 Dell laptop recently.

 On reboot, there was no System Upgrade choice in the GRUB menu.

 I reviewed the instructions, which advised rebuilding grub (the
 assumption was that the grub was incompatible because it was from
 another Linux installation; in my case it was fresh install of F21).

 The commands that were issued (from the instructions):
  grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
  grub2-install /dev/sda (replace /dev/sda by any other device you
 prefer to boot from)  (in my case /dev/sda1)

 I rebooted, and I was back in F21.


grub2-install /dev/sda1 would put the grub loader into the boot
sector of the first partition (possibly your /boot or /
filesystem)--NOT the MBR of the drive.

The machine boots from the MBR of the first drive. That's why you use
/dev/sda and not /dev/sda1 (put the boot on the MBR of the drive,
not the partition).


Thanks for the quick reply. I repeated the process per your correction.
However, my bootloader reads something like Linux with Fedup as the
first choice.

After choosing that there is no system upgrade; rather, the machine
returns to its regular desktop settings

In a terminal window, the following shows up:
root@brill /var/cache/system-upgrade uname -a
Linux brill 4.0.4-301.fc22.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu May 21 13:10:33 UTC 2015
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Should I restart the fedup process (two hours+ of download for 2751
packages) or are there just a few steps that could be retraced in order
to resume the system upgrade?


I think that's the one that does the actual update. I haven't done an 
F22 upgrade yet, so the text in the wiki may not reflect the F22 
terminology.


Try booting that Linux with Fedup thing and see if it does the
upgrade.
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-  Money can't buy happiness, but it can take the sting out of being -
- miserable! -
--
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup to F22: No System Upgrade in GRUB menu [solved ...]

[Max Pyziur]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Rick Stevens wrote:


On 06/03/2015 03:12 PM, Max Pyziur wrote:

 On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Rick Stevens wrote:

  On 06/03/2015 02:44 PM, Max Pyziur wrote:
 


[...]



 Thanks for the quick reply. I repeated the process per your correction.
 However, my bootloader reads something like Linux with Fedup as the
 first choice.

 After choosing that there is no system upgrade; rather, the machine
 returns to its regular desktop settings

 In a terminal window, the following shows up:
 root@brill /var/cache/system-upgrade uname -a
 Linux brill 4.0.4-301.fc22.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu May 21 13:10:33 UTC 2015
 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

 Should I restart the fedup process (two hours+ of download for 2751
 packages) or are there just a few steps that could be retraced in order
 to resume the system upgrade?


I think that's the one that does the actual update. I haven't done an F22 
upgrade yet, so the text in the wiki may not reflect the F22 terminology.


Try booting that Linux with Fedup thing and see if it does the
upgrade.


I made three more passes doing
fedup --network 22

On the first pass, I had loaded the new-ish kernel from the GRUB-menu.

fedup gave me some errors and terminated.

On the last (3rd or 4th), I loaded the latest FC21 kernel from GRUB, then 
did fedup. It verfied all of my downloads, then told me to to reboo. When 
I rebooted, I had a System Upgrade.


From there it worked correctly.

Obviously, there must be some logic that explains the first two-three 
failures, and then the final success.


Don't know what that is, though.


--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-  Money can't buy happiness, but it can take the sting out of being -
- miserable! -
--



Max
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: FedUp F20 to F21 FAILED download

[Dan Mossor]

On 04/17/2015 11:48 AM, jd1008 wrote:



On 04/17/2015 10:35 AM, German Racca wrote:

On 04/13/2015 08:57 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 04/14/15 01:43, Germán Racca wrote:

I'm performing upgrade from Fedora 20 to 21, the download of the
packages was fine until it reached the end of the list and failed
with one package (libbabeltrace). Please see the output[*] at the
end of the message. Any advice is welcome.

Thanks in advance,

Do either

fedup --clean

or

fedup --resetbootloader

and then rerun

fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct


The firewall of the university was blocking the mirrors, now it is
working fine.

Thanks anyway!

German.

Hi.
I am running F21, but manpage does not show
any paramater like --product=nonproduct

I searched the manpage for the word product and did not find such a word.

So, which version of fedup has the --product arg?

Thanx
The only version of fedup that required the --product argument was the 
upgrade from Fedora 20 to 21, since products didn't exist before 21. To 
go from Fedora 21 to Fedora 22, you'll simply need to add the --network 
and --22 arguments, since your product is already in /etc/os-release.


--
Dan Mossor
Systems Engineer at Large
Fedora KDE WG | Fedora QA Team | Fedora Server SIG
Fedora Infrastructure Apprentice
FAS: dmossor IRC: danofsatx
San Antonio, Texas, USA
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: FedUp F20 to F21 FAILED download

[jd1008]

On 04/17/2015 12:32 PM, Dan Mossor wrote:

On 04/17/2015 11:48 AM, jd1008 wrote:



On 04/17/2015 10:35 AM, German Racca wrote:

On 04/13/2015 08:57 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 04/14/15 01:43, Germán Racca wrote:

I'm performing upgrade from Fedora 20 to 21, the download of the
packages was fine until it reached the end of the list and failed
with one package (libbabeltrace). Please see the output[*] at the
end of the message. Any advice is welcome.

Thanks in advance,

Do either

fedup --clean

or

fedup --resetbootloader

and then rerun

fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct


The firewall of the university was blocking the mirrors, now it is
working fine.

Thanks anyway!

German.

Hi.
I am running F21, but manpage does not show
any paramater like --product=nonproduct

I searched the manpage for the word product and did not find such a 
word.


So, which version of fedup has the --product arg?

Thanx
The only version of fedup that required the --product argument was the 
upgrade from Fedora 20 to 21, since products didn't exist before 21. 
To go from Fedora 21 to Fedora 22, you'll simply need to add the 
--network and --22 arguments, since your product is already in 
/etc/os-release.



Cool.
Good to know.
Thanx!
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: FedUp F20 to F21 FAILED download

[German Racca]

On 04/17/2015 01:48 PM, jd1008 wrote:



On 04/17/2015 10:35 AM, German Racca wrote:

On 04/13/2015 08:57 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 04/14/15 01:43, Germán Racca wrote:
I'm performing upgrade from Fedora 20 to 21, the download of the 
packages was fine until it reached the end of the list and failed 
with one package (libbabeltrace). Please see the output[*] at the 
end of the message. Any advice is welcome.


Thanks in advance,

Do either

fedup --clean

or

fedup --resetbootloader

and then rerun

fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct

The firewall of the university was blocking the mirrors, now it is 
working fine.


Thanks anyway!

German.

Hi.
I am running F21, but manpage does not show
any paramater like --product=nonproduct

I searched the manpage for the word product and did not find such a word.

So, which version of fedup has the --product arg?

Thanx


Well, I followed Fedora wiki, but now I see that the option is not 
specified in the man pages.


Nevertheless, the option exists and it works!

My version of fedup in F21 is the latest one.

German.
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: FedUp F20 to F21 FAILED download

[German Racca]

On 04/13/2015 08:57 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 04/14/15 01:43, Germán Racca wrote:

I'm performing upgrade from Fedora 20 to 21, the download of the packages was 
fine until it reached the end of the list and failed with one package 
(libbabeltrace). Please see the output[*] at the end of the message. Any advice 
is welcome.

Thanks in advance,

Do either

fedup --clean

or

fedup --resetbootloader

and then rerun

fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct

The firewall of the university was blocking the mirrors, now it is 
working fine.


Thanks anyway!

German.
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: FedUp F20 to F21 FAILED download

[jd1008]

On 04/17/2015 10:35 AM, German Racca wrote:

On 04/13/2015 08:57 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 04/14/15 01:43, Germán Racca wrote:
I'm performing upgrade from Fedora 20 to 21, the download of the 
packages was fine until it reached the end of the list and failed 
with one package (libbabeltrace). Please see the output[*] at the 
end of the message. Any advice is welcome.


Thanks in advance,

Do either

fedup --clean

or

fedup --resetbootloader

and then rerun

fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct

The firewall of the university was blocking the mirrors, now it is 
working fine.


Thanks anyway!

German.

Hi.
I am running F21, but manpage does not show
any paramater like --product=nonproduct

I searched the manpage for the word product and did not find such a word.

So, which version of fedup has the --product arg?

Thanx
--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: FedUp F20 to F21 FAILED download

[Ed Greshko]

On 04/14/15 01:43, Germán Racca wrote:
 I'm performing upgrade from Fedora 20 to 21, the download of the packages was 
 fine until it reached the end of the list and failed with one package 
 (libbabeltrace). Please see the output[*] at the end of the message. Any 
 advice is welcome.

 Thanks in advance, 

Do either

fedup --clean

or

fedup --resetbootloader

and then rerun

fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct

-- 
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup to 22

[Ed Greshko]

On 04/13/15 09:14, jd1008 wrote:
 Has anyone run fedup to 22?

 If yes, any problems with f22? 

Since F22 is only in Beta testing, you're question would best be asked on the 
testing list

-- 
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup to 22

[Kelly Miller]

Only problem with 22 I've run into so far is that there's something wrong
with NFS.  Otherwise, everything seems to be fine.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 9:14 PM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:

 Has anyone run fedup to 22?

 If yes, any problems with f22?

 Thanx.
 --
 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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
 Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup troubles

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 06:49:48PM +, Beartooth wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:03:07 -0700, Greg Woods wrote:
 
 
 
 
  Downloading failed: Didn't install any keys [root@localhost ~]#
 
  Clue, please?
 
 
  I never could get the GPG part of the Rpmfusion repo to work with fedup.
  I ended up using --nogpgcheck (yes I am aware of the risks of doing
  that) so that I could get fedup to complete. Once I had done the
  upgrade, I had to manually correct some of the symlinks in
  /etc/pki/rpm-gpg to get further updates to work properly without
  --nogpgcheck.
  
  There is a point during the upgrade process where the generic symlink
  RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-x86_64 has to be changed from pointing to the F20 key
  to pointing to the F21 key, and this isn't working right. This seems
  like more of an rpmfusion problem than a Fedora problem. So I ran with
  --nogpgcheck, then manually fixed the symlink afterwards. My updates
  work fine now.
 
   That did it : the machine is running F21 now. Many many thanks!
 
   I don't completely understand the caveat, though. I follow the 
 need to fix the symlink, but I don't know how to do it. 
 
   Iiuc, the fault is a bug in Fedora somewhere, which I was lucky 
 enough to hit only on the last machine I fed up; if that's so, there must 
 be more of us -- and, I hope, maybe, a nice clear mini-tutorial already 
 posted somewhere explaining how to accomplish the fix. Anybody know?

I ran into a similar bug.  From the fedup author(s) I understand they
are aware of why this situation happens, and are working on a fix so
it won't occur in future releases.

-- 
Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup troubles

[Richard England]

On 12/30/14 14:51, Robin Laing wrote:

On 2014-12-29 15:03, Greg Woods wrote:




Downloading failed: Didn't install any keys
[root@localhost ~]#

 Clue, please?



I never could get the GPG part of the Rpmfusion repo to work with 
fedup. I
ended up using --nogpgcheck (yes I am aware of the risks of doing 
that) so
that I could get fedup to complete. Once I had done the upgrade, I 
had to

manually correct some of the symlinks in /etc/pki/rpm-gpg to get further
updates to work properly without --nogpgcheck.

There is a point during the upgrade process where the generic
symlink RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-x86_64 has to be changed from pointing to the
F20 key to pointing to the F21 key, and this isn't working right. This
seems like more of an rpmfusion problem than a Fedora problem. So I ran
with --nogpgcheck, then manually fixed the symlink afterwards. My 
updates

work fine now.

--Greg





I installed the gpg keys before running fedup using something similar 
to this for the various rpmfusion repos.



rpm --import /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-rpmfusion-nonfree-fedora-21



+1   When I encountered that I, too, updated the keys then restarted 
fedup and it was successful.


~~R

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup issues

[Robin Laing]

On 2014-12-29 18:39, Robin Laing wrote:

Overall, I say that this worked pretty good.


F19 to F21

Encrypted laptop using FedUp following the wiki.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp

One issue with shutdown which is a reported bug.

om the wiki, went well until the shutdown.  Left it as we were busy and 
it kept A stop job is running for Cryptography... (... / no limit)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160079

All that was needed was a hard reboot.  Finished the install and 
cleanup, system working.


Over all, with three machines, it has been a pretty clean upgrade.

Now to clean up some kernel entries in the grub menu from before the 
upgrade.


Well done.



--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup troubles

[Beartooth]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:03:07 -0700, Greg Woods wrote:




 Downloading failed: Didn't install any keys [root@localhost ~]#

 Clue, please?


 I never could get the GPG part of the Rpmfusion repo to work with fedup.
 I ended up using --nogpgcheck (yes I am aware of the risks of doing
 that) so that I could get fedup to complete. Once I had done the
 upgrade, I had to manually correct some of the symlinks in
 /etc/pki/rpm-gpg to get further updates to work properly without
 --nogpgcheck.
 
 There is a point during the upgrade process where the generic symlink
 RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-x86_64 has to be changed from pointing to the F20 key
 to pointing to the F21 key, and this isn't working right. This seems
 like more of an rpmfusion problem than a Fedora problem. So I ran with
 --nogpgcheck, then manually fixed the symlink afterwards. My updates
 work fine now.

That did it : the machine is running F21 now. Many many thanks!

I don't completely understand the caveat, though. I follow the 
need to fix the symlink, but I don't know how to do it. 

Iiuc, the fault is a bug in Fedora somewhere, which I was lucky 
enough to hit only on the last machine I fed up; if that's so, there must 
be more of us -- and, I hope, maybe, a nice clear mini-tutorial already 
posted somewhere explaining how to accomplish the fix. Anybody know?

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User
Remember I know little (precious little!) of where up is.


-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup troubles

[Robin Laing]

On 2014-12-29 15:03, Greg Woods wrote:




Downloading failed: Didn't install any keys
[root@localhost ~]#

 Clue, please?



I never could get the GPG part of the Rpmfusion repo to work with fedup. I
ended up using --nogpgcheck (yes I am aware of the risks of doing that) so
that I could get fedup to complete. Once I had done the upgrade, I had to
manually correct some of the symlinks in /etc/pki/rpm-gpg to get further
updates to work properly without --nogpgcheck.

There is a point during the upgrade process where the generic
symlink RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-x86_64 has to be changed from pointing to the
F20 key to pointing to the F21 key, and this isn't working right. This
seems like more of an rpmfusion problem than a Fedora problem. So I ran
with --nogpgcheck, then manually fixed the symlink afterwards. My updates
work fine now.

--Greg





I installed the gpg keys before running fedup using something similar to 
this for the various rpmfusion repos.



rpm --import /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-rpmfusion-nonfree-fedora-21



--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup troubles

[Greg Woods]

 Downloading failed: Didn't install any keys
 [root@localhost ~]#

 Clue, please?


I never could get the GPG part of the Rpmfusion repo to work with fedup. I
ended up using --nogpgcheck (yes I am aware of the risks of doing that) so
that I could get fedup to complete. Once I had done the upgrade, I had to
manually correct some of the symlinks in /etc/pki/rpm-gpg to get further
updates to work properly without --nogpgcheck.

There is a point during the upgrade process where the generic
symlink RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-x86_64 has to be changed from pointing to the
F20 key to pointing to the F21 key, and this isn't working right. This
seems like more of an rpmfusion problem than a Fedora problem. So I ran
with --nogpgcheck, then manually fixed the symlink afterwards. My updates
work fine now.

--Greg
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup issues

[Robin Laing]

On 2014-12-29 18:39, Robin Laing wrote:

Overall, I say that this worked pretty good.

...



Machine 2.

Dual boot, Win 8.1 / Fedora.

While running fedup, is stuck at the end.  Before the shutdown and
reboot.  Don't know what happened but after two hours of sitting there,
I shut down.

On reboot, machine couldn't find the grubenv.  I found a bug and
followed some of the instructions and now it boots.

Before I got to this point, I couldn't boot into any of the F20 kernel
listed and the rescue mode wouldn't let me mount any of the unused
partitions automatically.

I removed the old kernels using yum one at a time from the lowest
version to the latest.

Only issue that I see to have right now is that the /home/user
partitions are not mounting but fstab doesn't look like it was changed.
  I will have to check pam-mount configuration.

Don't know if encryption has had anything to do with this.




Issue with pam_mount was due to selinux.  Needed to allow selinux to let 
pam_mount mount the users home partitions.


Now for the find configuration.

Working as before.


--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup 20 to 21 - Gnome fails to start

[linuxnutster]

On 12/11/2014 07:51 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Hi

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:36 PM,  wrote:

I used fedup to move from F20 to F21 on two PCs. Both have Asus
EN210 Nvidia graphics cards. In both cases, starting gnome would
result in an error which reads  a problem has occured and the
system can't recover. I reinstalled the akmod nvidia driver on the
PC with an EN210 1GB card, and, voila, the problem was solved;
however, this did not work for the PC with the EN210 512MB card. I
tried a few methods of reinstalling the driver, including negativo17
method ( http://negativo17.org/nvidia-__driver/
http://negativo17.org/nvidia-driver/ ) with no success.

I also tried the suggestion in the second link regarding enabling
updates testing ( newer kernel, etc.. ) with no success



Create a new user, login and see if that works

Rahul


 Nope, doesn't work; however, when I remove everything nvidia...gnome 
works fine.

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Gordon Messmer]

On 12/11/2014 03:30 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
So… Has anyone been able to update a LUKS-encrypted system, without 
getting stuck at the end? I couldn't find anything in Bugzilla. 


Yes.  I've updated two F20 systems with LUKS-encrypted LVM backed 
filesystems using fedup.


Felix already reported success using LUKS and no LVM.

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Chris Murphy]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote:

 On 12/11/2014 06:21 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

 We're talking about fedup doing its thing after rebooting into the
 upgrade kernel. It appears that the sysrq is enabled in the upgrade
 kernel, and I do believe that I accurately explained that sysrq did
 produce a response; unfortunately the response did not solve the problem
 the sysrq key was intended to solve.


 Sysrq key did produce an effect, but not, if memory serves, the effect
 it's supposed to.  Rather similar to a lock-up issue I had before swapping
 in a new mobo, where it worked reliably when I tested it, but not when I
 needed it because of hardware trouble.  No, I don't think that's what's
 going on with your system, but the responses you describe just don't sound
 right.  (And, if you're using the Magic Sysrq Key, it's ^Alt-Sysrq that's
 needed, not just sysrq.)


Only sync is enabled by default on Fedora.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/sysrq.txt

# cat /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
16

So you have to do:

echo 1  /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq

Now the other commands will work. I usually just echo the letter to
/proc/sysrq-trigger.

Chris Murphy



-- 
Chris Murphy
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Sam Varshavchik]

Chris Murphy writes:

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Michael Morgan  
URL:mailto:mmor...@dca.netmmor...@dca.net wrote:


   I ran into a hang like BZ 1160079 while upgrading from F20 on a similar
   setup yesterday. I didn't have any issues with disk space but the reboot
   did get stuck on the LUKS container when trying to unmount sysroot.
   Power cycling at that point was a bit frightening but the system came
   back up without issue.



Best to try 'reboot -f' which should still cleanly unmount filesystems. And  
if that doesn't work then sysrq + s, u, b (in order). If that doesn't work,  
OK power cycle.


Hit the same bug here too, with a LUKS-based laptop.

I forgot about reboot -f. sysrq+s did not do anything; sysrq+u made the  
entire console output from the entire installation process, from start to  
finish, scroll through the console at warp speed, looping 3-4 times, which  
was highly amusing to watch; sysrq+b did not do anything.


The reboot was getting stuck unmounting some of the LUKS volumes. There were  
about five or six unmount tasks that systemd spawned off. All but two of  
them had the default 90 second timeout, and they were killed afterwards. Two  
of them had an unlimited timeout, and that's where the reboot gets stuck.


The three-fingered-salute produced a response, though. Unfortunately, it was  
the same reboot cycle, again. 90 seconds to time out all but the two  
remaining jobs, then spin forever.


After a reboot, the system looks ok. forcefsck didn't find anything to  
complain about.


So… Has anyone been able to update a LUKS-encrypted system, without getting  
stuck at the end? I couldn't find anything in Bugzilla.




pgp6A_XV8yM3Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Joe Zeff]

On 12/11/2014 03:30 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

I forgot about reboot -f. sysrq+s did not do anything; sysrq+u made the
entire console output from the entire installation process, from start
to finish, scroll through the console at warp speed, looping 3-4 times,
which was highly amusing to watch; sysrq+b did not do anything.


In order for sysrq to do any good, you have to activate the Magic Sysrq 
Key.  (Details can be found in Wikipedia.)

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup 20 to 21 - Gnome fails to start

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:36 PM,  wrote:

 I used fedup to move from F20 to F21 on two PCs. Both have Asus EN210
 Nvidia graphics cards. In both cases, starting gnome would result in an
 error which reads  a problem has occured and the system can't recover. I
 reinstalled the akmod nvidia driver on the PC with an EN210 1GB card, and,
 voila, the problem was solved; however, this did not work for the PC with
 the EN210 512MB card. I tried a few methods of reinstalling the driver,
 including negativo17 method ( http://negativo17.org/nvidia-driver/ ) with
 no success.

 I also tried the suggestion in the second link regarding enabling updates
 testing ( newer kernel, etc.. ) with no success



Create a new user, login and see if that works

Rahul
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Sam Varshavchik]

Joe Zeff writes:


On 12/11/2014 03:30 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

I forgot about reboot -f. sysrq+s did not do anything; sysrq+u made the
entire console output from the entire installation process, from start
to finish, scroll through the console at warp speed, looping 3-4 times,
which was highly amusing to watch; sysrq+b did not do anything.


In order for sysrq to do any good, you have to activate the Magic Sysrq  
Key.  (Details can be found in Wikipedia.)


We're talking about fedup doing its thing after rebooting into the upgrade  
kernel. It appears that the sysrq is enabled in the upgrade kernel, and I do  
believe that I accurately explained that sysrq did produce a response;  
unfortunately the response did not solve the problem the sysrq key was  
intended to solve.




pgpZ7FWHvQLVp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Joe Zeff]

On 12/11/2014 06:21 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

We're talking about fedup doing its thing after rebooting into the
upgrade kernel. It appears that the sysrq is enabled in the upgrade
kernel, and I do believe that I accurately explained that sysrq did
produce a response; unfortunately the response did not solve the problem
the sysrq key was intended to solve.


Sysrq key did produce an effect, but not, if memory serves, the effect 
it's supposed to.  Rather similar to a lock-up issue I had before 
swapping in a new mobo, where it worked reliably when I tested it, but 
not when I needed it because of hardware trouble.  No, I don't think 
that's what's going on with your system, but the responses you describe 
just don't sound right.  (And, if you're using the Magic Sysrq Key, it's 
^Alt-Sysrq that's needed, not just sysrq.)

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Felix Schwarz]

Am 10.12.2014 um 04:17 schrieb Robin Laing:
 In the past, using fedup was a disaster due to encrypted systems.
 
 Is this working in F21?

 Don't use LVM's and partitions are encrypted using LUKS.  This includes /tmp
 swap.  /boot isn't encrypted.

It worked for me, I upgraded from F20-F21 and a very similar filesystem setup
as you described (luks encrypted / + swap, no lvm).

fs

-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Michael Morgan]

I ran into a hang like BZ 1160079 while upgrading from F20 on a similar
setup yesterday. I didn't have any issues with disk space but the reboot
did get stuck on the LUKS container when trying to unmount sysroot.
Power cycling at that point was a bit frightening but the system came
back up without issue.

-Mike

On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 08:17:06PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
 Hello,
 
 In the past, using fedup was a disaster due to encrypted systems.
 
 Is this working in F21?
 
 Don't use LVM's and partitions are encrypted using LUKS.  This includes /tmp
 swap.  /boot isn't encrypted.
 
 Have had issues installing in the past with encrypted partitions.
 
 Seen many bug reports about fedup and encrypted partitions.
 
 Will be going from F19 and F20 to F21.
 
 Robin
 -- 
 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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
 Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup - luks encrypted system

[Chris Murphy]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Michael Morgan mmor...@dca.net wrote:

 I ran into a hang like BZ 1160079 while upgrading from F20 on a similar
 setup yesterday. I didn't have any issues with disk space but the reboot
 did get stuck on the LUKS container when trying to unmount sysroot.
 Power cycling at that point was a bit frightening but the system came
 back up without issue.


Best to try 'reboot -f' which should still cleanly unmount filesystems. And
if that doesn't work then sysrq + s, u, b (in order). If that doesn't work,
OK power cycle.


-- 
Chris Murphy
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup??

[Beartooth]

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:23:49 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:

 On 11/08/2014 02:08 PM, Beartooth wrote:
  yum install fedup actually does something, without complaining.
 But does Fedora still use fedup?? If not, what? I'd expected this list
 to be abuzz by now with posts about upgrading, but I don't see them.
 Are things in general really going so swimmingly that nobody questions
 anything??
 
 I've never had a bit of trouble with it on my laptop and I've never had
 fedup work properly on my desktop.  Go know.  I'm going to have to
 upgrade the desktop before F19 expires, and I'm considering trying the
 unofficial fedora-upgrade tool and see if it works better.

By unofficial fedora-upgrade tool I suppose you mean yum 
upgrade? I've seen posts about it, but never tried it myself.

  (I've always
 had fedup hang, leaving large numbers of duplicate packages and the
 system only working in CLI mode.  Generally speaking, it takes several
 days worth of manual cleanup before package-cleanup --cleandupes will
 work in a reasonable time frame.  Maybe yum-complete-transaction would
 be better.)  And, to answer your question, fedup is still the official
 upgrade tool.

I had somehow missed the information on full release as of 12/9; 
so I guess I'm jumping the gun a bit. I apologize for that.

However, as I tried to say before, I'm left with my two main PCs 
running F21 Alpha and respectively F21 Beta. Beta is all right. I've 
often installed a Beta on an expendable machine -- not that I can help 
much, if at all, but just to get a foretaste.

However, I've never touched an Alpha before, and I'm stunned at 
having no problems, so far touch wood!. I guess what I'm after is any 
clue on whether I'm better off putting my Beta install medium into the 
Alpha machine, or simply running fedup on it. Or, I suppose, keeping both 
as they are and hanging on for another month. Thoughts??

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User
Remember I know little (precious little!) of where up is.


-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup??

[Ed Greshko]

On 11/10/14 02:31, Beartooth wrote:
 However, I've never touched an Alpha before, and I'm stunned at 
 having no problems, so far touch wood!. I guess what I'm after is any 
 clue on whether I'm better off putting my Beta install medium into the 
 Alpha machine, or simply running fedup on it. Or, I suppose, keeping both 
 as they are and hanging on for another month. Thoughts??

If you have a machine running a form of F21 then you'll not be running fedup 
since it isn't a tool to upgrade from a level to the same level.  You'll 
probably want to run yum distro-sync at some point.


-- 
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.

-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup??

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Beartooth  wrote:


 By unofficial fedora-upgrade tool I suppose you mean yum
 upgrade? I've seen posts about it, but never tried it myself.


No

$ sudo dnf info yum-upgrade

Available Packages
Name: fedora-upgrade
Arch: noarch
Epoch   : 0
Version : 21.2
Release : 1.fc21
Size: 34 k
Repo: updates-testing
Summary : Upgrade Fedora to next version using yum upgrade (unofficial
tool)
URL : https://github.com/xsuchy/fedora-upgrade
License : GPLv2
Description : Upgrade Fedora to next version using yum upgrade.
: This is attempt to automatize steps as listed here:
: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum
:
: This is an unofficial tool, for official Fedora-supported
: upgrades please see the 'fedup' tool.


Rahul
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup??

[poma]

On 09.11.2014 22:24, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 Hi
 
 On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Beartooth  wrote:
 

 By unofficial fedora-upgrade tool I suppose you mean yum
 upgrade? I've seen posts about it, but never tried it myself.

 
 No
 
 $ sudo dnf info yum-upgrade
 
 Available Packages
 Name: fedora-upgrade
 Arch: noarch
 Epoch   : 0
 Version : 21.2
 Release : 1.fc21
 Size: 34 k
 Repo: updates-testing
 Summary : Upgrade Fedora to next version using yum upgrade (unofficial
 tool)
 URL : https://github.com/xsuchy/fedora-upgrade
 License : GPLv2
 Description : Upgrade Fedora to next version using yum upgrade.
 : This is attempt to automatize steps as listed here:
 : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum
 :
 : This is an unofficial tool, for official Fedora-supported
 : upgrades please see the 'fedup' tool.
 
 

Interestingly, unofficial tool is more reliable than official one. :)

unofficial == FedoraUpgrade
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraUpgrade

official == FedUp
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp


-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup??

[Ed Greshko]

On 11/09/14 06:08, Beartooth wrote:
   I bollixed one PC so badly, a week or two ago, that I gave up on 
 repair and just installed F21 Alpha (from a live CD). I've been very 
 pleased with it. 

   Nevertheless, I suppose, I really ought to upgrade.

   yum install fedup actually does something, without complaining. 
 But does Fedora still use fedup?? If not, what? I'd expected this list to 
 be abuzz by now with posts about upgrading, but I don't see them. Are 
 things in general really going so swimmingly that nobody questions 
 anything??

   I've put time and effort into tweaking, and would prefer 
 upgrading in a way that would keep that, if I can.


F21 hasn't been released yet.  That will happen in early December.  fedup will 
be used.  At the moment the fedup process is in testing and is not quite stable.

If you're interested in all things F21 you should be reading the test list.

-- 
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup??

[Joe Zeff]

On 11/08/2014 02:08 PM, Beartooth wrote:

yum install fedup actually does something, without complaining.
But does Fedora still use fedup?? If not, what? I'd expected this list to
be abuzz by now with posts about upgrading, but I don't see them. Are
things in general really going so swimmingly that nobody questions
anything??


I've never had a bit of trouble with it on my laptop and I've never had 
fedup work properly on my desktop.  Go know.  I'm going to have to 
upgrade the desktop before F19 expires, and I'm considering trying the 
unofficial fedora-upgrade tool and see if it works better.  (I've always 
had fedup hang, leaving large numbers of duplicate packages and the 
system only working in CLI mode.  Generally speaking, it takes several 
days worth of manual cleanup before package-cleanup --cleandupes will 
work in a reasonable time frame.  Maybe yum-complete-transaction would 
be better.)  And, to answer your question, fedup is still the official 
upgrade tool.

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedup??

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 06:23 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
I've put time and effort into tweaking, and would prefer 
  upgrading in a way that would keep that, if I can.
 
 
 F21 hasn't been released yet.  That will happen in early December.
 fedup will be used.  At the moment the fedup process is in testing and
 is not quite stable.
 
 If you're interested in all things F21 you should be reading the
 test list.

+1

The Test list has some recent traffic about issues with fedup.

poc

-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup 17 to 18 worked, now fedup to 19 fails

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:35:49 +0100
Gary Stainburn gary.stainb...@ringways.co.uk wrote:

 Hi folks.
 
 I'm currently doing this on a local box before moving onto doing it
 on a remote virtual server set.  I fedup'd from 17 to 18 with only
 the one problem where I had to manuall run 'yum clean all' to get
 things finished.
 
 I'm now trying to do it a second time to go from F18 to F19, but it
 failed as shown below.  I'm still Googling for an answer but
 hopefully someone can help.

...snip...

 Downloading failed: could not verify GPG signature: No public key
 [root@lcomp2 ~]# fedup --network 19
 setting up repos...
 getting boot images...
 .treeinfo.signed
 | 2.1 kB  00:00:00 
 
 Downloading failed: could not verify GPG signature: No public key
 [root@lcomp2 ~]# 

This is likely due to fedup 0.8 adding gpg key checking, but Fedora 18
has no keys (it was end of lifed before we started adding them). 

See: 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#fedup-18-gpg

for more info. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup 19 to 20 problems

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:03:18 -0400
Frank McCormick bea...@videotron.ca wrote:

 
Ran Fedup today to upgrade my 19 system to 20 - all the packages
 are downloaded, the fedup kernel is installed...and I have 2 new
 selections of the grub screen fedup and fedup rescue. However neither
 will complete the boot so the upgrade can go ahead. The boot stalls
 just after a message about Selinux not being found or something to
 that effect.
 
 Need some advice on what to do

Could be: 

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#FedUp-boot-arguments 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup 19 to 20 problems

[Frank McCormick]

On 27/09/14 02:11 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:03:18 -0400
Frank McCormick bea...@videotron.ca wrote:



Ran Fedup today to upgrade my 19 system to 20 - all the packages
are downloaded, the fedup kernel is installed...and I have 2 new
selections of the grub screen fedup and fedup rescue. However neither
will complete the boot so the upgrade can go ahead. The boot stalls
just after a message about Selinux not being found or something to
that effect.

Need some advice on what to do


Could be:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#FedUp-boot-arguments



  Well the link didn't describe my exact problem but it gave me a clue 
- I added selinux=0 to the kernel command line---the boot had stalled on 
the sellinux problem. Fedup then eventually ended up installing 
everything and so far, with the exception of google-chrome which I had 
to reinstall everything ***seems*** to have gone well. A nice feeling 
after reading some of the horror stories around fedup :)



Thanks



--
1984 was not meant as a blueprint for
democratic governments.


--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup issue with thunderbird

[linuxnutster]

On 04/23/2014 08:51 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 04/23/14 19:40, linuxnuts...@videotron.ca wrote:

I upgraded to fedora 20 from fedora 19 using fedup. Everything went well except 
for some weird issues with Thunderbird. The latter is now giving me a pile of 
weird permission errors and disk space errors. There is 215GB free space, so I 
know that is not the problem. Obviously this has somethign to do with the 
permissions on the .thunderbird folder, but I do not have the knoweldge to 
rectify the problem. Could somebody kindly nudge me in the right direction?




Since fedup doesn't muck with user files, it is doubtful to be a permission 
issue on your ~/.thunderbird directory.  Everything under that directory will 
be owned by your username.  Certainly you can ensure that the files are owned 
by your username by doing

chown -R username:usergroup ~/.thunderbird(using the appropriate values)

You'd be much better served to actually post the actual error messages you are 
getting as opposed to people assuming what you're seeing and then making 
suggestions based on assumptions that may not be valid.




I checked the backup copy I made of .thunderbird before upgrading and 
the permissions were not the same. I then changed the permissions on the 
upgraded folder using info found on mozilla forums, etc... with no 
change. The solution seems to be to delete all the folders, sub-folders, 
and message filters and rebuild them. I also was extremely pressed for 
time, and sent in the email extremely quickly before I could include the 
exact message errors. I apologize for the omission(s).

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup issue with thunderbird

[linuxnutster]

On 04/23/2014 08:48 AM, Steven Stern wrote:

On 04/23/2014 06:40 AM, linuxnuts...@videotron.ca wrote:

I upgraded to fedora 20 from fedora 19 using fedup. Everything went well
except for some weird issues with Thunderbird. The latter is now giving
me a pile of weird permission errors and disk space errors. There is
215GB free space, so I know that is not the problem. Obviously this has
somethign to do with the permissions on the .thunderbird folder, but I
do not have the knoweldge to rectify the problem. Could somebody kindly
nudge me in the right direction?

Thanks!


$ ls -ldZ .thunderbird
drwxr-xr-x. sdstern sdstern system_u:object_r:mozilla_home_t:s0 .thunderbird

This suggest that there may be problems if you have quotas enabled


http://superuser.com/questions/629914/howto-deal-with-the-there-is-not-enough-disk-space-to-download-messages-error




H... thanks for the heads-up. This seems to be something worthy of 
investigation. I'm about to use fedup on my laptop. It will be 
interesting to see what happens.

--
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup issue with thunderbird

[Steven Stern]

On 04/23/2014 06:40 AM, linuxnuts...@videotron.ca wrote:
 I upgraded to fedora 20 from fedora 19 using fedup. Everything went well
 except for some weird issues with Thunderbird. The latter is now giving
 me a pile of weird permission errors and disk space errors. There is
 215GB free space, so I know that is not the problem. Obviously this has
 somethign to do with the permissions on the .thunderbird folder, but I
 do not have the knoweldge to rectify the problem. Could somebody kindly
 nudge me in the right direction?
 
 Thanks!

$ ls -ldZ .thunderbird
drwxr-xr-x. sdstern sdstern system_u:object_r:mozilla_home_t:s0 .thunderbird

This suggest that there may be problems if you have quotas enabled


http://superuser.com/questions/629914/howto-deal-with-the-there-is-not-enough-disk-space-to-download-messages-error


-- 
-- Steve
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedup issue with thunderbird

[Ed Greshko]

On 04/23/14 19:40, linuxnuts...@videotron.ca wrote:
 I upgraded to fedora 20 from fedora 19 using fedup. Everything went well 
 except for some weird issues with Thunderbird. The latter is now giving me a 
 pile of weird permission errors and disk space errors. There is 215GB free 
 space, so I know that is not the problem. Obviously this has somethign to do 
 with the permissions on the .thunderbird folder, but I do not have the 
 knoweldge to rectify the problem. Could somebody kindly nudge me in the right 
 direction?



Since fedup doesn't muck with user files, it is doubtful to be a permission 
issue on your ~/.thunderbird directory.  Everything under that directory will 
be owned by your username.  Certainly you can ensure that the files are owned 
by your username by doing

chown -R username:usergroup ~/.thunderbird(using the appropriate values)

You'd be much better served to actually post the actual error messages you are 
getting as opposed to people assuming what you're seeing and then making 
suggestions based on assumptions that may not be valid.


-- 
Getting tired of non-Fedora discussions and self-serving posts
-- 
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://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org