On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 19:29:51 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
> Patrick Dupre wrote:
> >> This has been solved by
> >>
> >> rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK-0.12-1-1.fc30.x86_64
>
> Michael Schwendt:
> > The good old "rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK" would have been enough for the
> > most common use case.
>
> Don'
Patrick Dupre wrote:
>> This has been solved by
>>
>> rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK-0.12-1-1.fc30.x86_64
Michael Schwendt:
> The good old "rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK" would have been enough for the
> most common use case.
Don't you have to do up to the first dot?
i.e. rpm -q perl-PDL-LAPACK-0
--
unam
On 6/2/20 12:57 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 00:25:59 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK-0.12-1-1.fc30.x86_64
The good old "rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK" would have been enough for the
most common use case.
Maybe you missed the original message where he tried the e
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 00:25:59 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >> rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK-0.12-1-1.fc30.x86_64
> >
> > The good old "rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK" would have been enough for the
> > most common use case.
>
> Maybe you missed the original message where he tried the equivalent of
> that wit
On 6/2/20 12:14 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:12:06 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
This has been solved by
rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK-0.12-1-1.fc30.x86_64
The good old "rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK" would have been enough for the
most common use case.
Maybe you missed the original m
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:12:06 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> This has been solved by
>
> rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK-0.12-1-1.fc30.x86_64
The good old "rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK" would have been enough for the
most common use case.
___
users mailing list -- users
On 6/1/20 3:25 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
What I would like is to have an automatic removing of my own packages
telling me which packages have been removed.
Add "--allowerasing" to the dnf command and check the list of removed
packages. It will also be in the dnf history.
_
ot;
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: upgrade 30 to 32
>
> On 6/1/20 2:15 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > Every time that I upgrade my system I have to do remove
> > all my own packages (40).
>
> If they are compiled against versions of libraries that are g
On 6/1/20 2:15 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Every time that I upgrade my system I have to do remove
all my own packages (40).
If they are compiled against versions of libraries that are getting
replaced, then yes. You could setup a vm to compile the libraries on
the new release and include those
> To: "Community support for Fedora users"
> Subject: Re: upgrade 30 to 32
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > running:
> > dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32
> > I get:
> >
> > Modular depen
47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 at 11:09 PM
> From: "Samuel Sieb"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: upgrade 30 to 32
>
>
On 6/1/20 2:00 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
running:
dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32
I get:
Modular dependency problem:
Problem: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f31) needed by module
gimp:2.10:3120191106095052:f636be4b-0.x86_64
This can be ignored. dnf w
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Hello,
running:
dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32
I get:
Modular dependency problem:
Problem: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f31) needed by module
gimp:2.10:3120191106095052:f636be4b-0.x86_64
This can be solved by
Hello,
running:
dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32
I get:
Modular dependency problem:
Problem: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f31) needed by module
gimp:2.10:3120191106095052:f636be4b-0.x86_64
Error:
Problem 1: package perl-PDL-LAPACK-0.12-1-1.fc30.x86_64
14 matches
Mail list logo
