Hi,
I had an enforced "not able to upgrade Fedora Rawhide for too long" period.
On doing the updates, one of my four computers updated fine, the other three
however got into problems. They are now in a state where "dnf check-updates"
reports a number of obsoletes, but "dnf upgrade" says nothing t
On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 09:06 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 07/13/2018 07:23 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> > PS Is it correct that dnf works fine without the history database, and
> > seems not to recreate it?
>
> You will have lost your past history of dnf transactions. The next time
> you install,
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 10:50:09 +0100
Russel Winder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had an enforced "not able to upgrade Fedora Rawhide for too long"
> period. On doing the updates, one of my four computers updated fine,
> the other three however got into problems. They are now in a state
> where "dnf check-upd
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 06:23 -0700, stan wrote:
> […]
>
> I think you want to see what the issues are. Do
> dnf --best update 2> dnf_errors.txt
> and look at the output file. It is kind of like a log jam. There
> are
> probably a few key packages that are orphaned, and they depend on
> older
> l
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 16:15:19 +0100
Russel Winder wrote:
[snip]
> [root@anglides ~]# dnf upgrade --best
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:41 ago on Sun 05 Aug 2018
> 16:10:08 BST.
> Dependencies resolved.
> Nothing to do.
> Complete!
>
> [root@anglides ~]# dnf check
> …
> zsh-5.5.1-1.fc29.x
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 10:22 -0700, stan wrote:
[…]
>
> I recently saw this with a package in F28. This shouldn't happen, as
> far as I know, because the later package is replacing the earlier
> package and dnf should know that. My take is that some change to the
> package gives the later version
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 18:48 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
>
[…]
> I tried "dnf remove --duplicates" but that downloaded 2.3GB and then
> failed to do anything due to dependency failures.
>
> Pragmatically I am not sure can try your suggestion as actually there
> are 2242 problem packages not just t
Except of course that the packages sudo, systemd, and systemd-udev are
protected and you cannot do "dnf remove" on them even if you are
removing a duplicate :-(
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 19:23 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 18:48 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> >
>
> […]
> > I tr
By judicious used of dnf, grep, and awk, I am now down to:
[root@anglides ~]# dnf check-update
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:28 ago on Sun 05 Aug 2018 19:57:06
BST.
[root@anglides ~]# dnf check
sudo-1.8.23-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with sudo-1.8.23-3.fc29.x86_64
systemd-239-1.fc29.x86_64
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 19:59:55 +0100
Russel Winder wrote:
> By judicious used of dnf, grep, and awk, I am now down to:
>
> [root@anglides ~]# dnf check-update
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:28 ago on Sun 05 Aug 2018
> 19:57:06 BST.
> [root@anglides ~]# dnf check
> sudo-1.8.23-1.fc29.x86_64
On 08/05/2018 02:50 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
I had an enforced "not able to upgrade Fedora Rawhide for too long" period.
On doing the updates, one of my four computers updated fine, the other three
however got into problems. They are now in a state where "dnf check-updates"
reports a number of ob
11 matches
Mail list logo
