Compose started at Tue Dec 23 05:15:07 UTC 2014
Broken deps for i386
--
[3Depict]
3Depict-0.0.16-3.fc22.i686 requires libmgl.so.7.2.0
[Sprog]
Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0)
[aeskulap]
aes
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:57:05PM -0300, Carlos Morel-Riquelme wrote:
> Hello folks
>
> My name is Carlos Morel-Riquelme i'm from Chile and i'm contributor for
> Fedora Project since F20 in Testing ( Bodhi ) though i start using Fedora
> since F15, also i'm student of computer engineering and i h
Hi;
I was running FC20 fully updated.
[root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct
Which worked.
Now when I try to 'yum update'
[root@localhost ~]# yum update
error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file
type or format
error: cannot open Packages
Could someone test and provide karma to
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17085/nss-3.17.3-2.fc21
It's important that this one gets pushed to stable ahead of the one for f20 as
nss has the same nvr. This is to prevent upgrade problems later on if someone
tries to upgrade their
The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads:
"When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images,
the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
desktops, as well as the minimal package set."
This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 10:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads:
>
> "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer
> images, the installer must be able to install each of the release
> blocking desktops, as well as the minimal pa
The following Fedora 21 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
34
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15342/rubygem-actionpack-4.1.5-2.fc21
33
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15413/rubygem-sprockets-2.12.1-3.fc21
30
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/u
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
81
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-11969/krb5-1.11.5-16.fc20
34
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15371/rubygem-actionpack-4.0.0-5.fc20
32
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDOR
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
423
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19963/openstack-glance-2013.1.4-1.fc19
81
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-12057/krb5-1.11.3-29.fc19
57
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDO
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 08:06 -0800, Mick wrote:
> Hi;
> I was running FC20 fully updated.
> [root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct
>
> Which worked.
> Now when I try to 'yum update'
> [root@localhost ~]# yum update
> error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packag
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:21:11AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to:
>
> "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image,
> the installer must be able to install the default package set."
>
> and add a Beta criterion:
>
> "When in
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 15:39 -0700, Mike Ruckman wrote:
> I'd be for blocking on a broken netinst (like your example), but if
> the repos are the same used for image creation this shouldn't really
> be an issue, right? (Yeah, I know I used the "S" word :p ) AIUI
> things would break in other pla
Hi Adam;
thanks for trying.
It made no difference.
The message was:
[root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb
error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file
type or format
error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22)
and looking at the file:
[r
On Ter, 2014-12-23 at 19:46 -0800, Mick wrote:
> Hi Adam;
> thanks for trying.
> It made no difference.
>
> The message was:
> [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb
> error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file
> type or format
> error: cannot open Packages in
Hi Serge;
[mick@localhost ~]$ file /var/lib/rpm/Packages
/var/lib/rpm/Packages: data
On Tue, 12/23/14, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Subject: Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21
To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date: Tuesday, December 23,
15 matches
Mail list logo