On 26/04/2021 03:34, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Ed Greshko wrote:
Well, for sure you have rpmfusion-nonfree-appstream-data installed on your
system. And,
in the update process it is found that the signing key needs and update as well.
As a guess, I tried yum update
On 4/25/21 12:34 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Ed Greshko wrote:
I don't know why you'd see this request to update the key as a "problem".
I took it as a request to continue without a valid key.
>>> Importing GPG key 0x94843C65:
>>> Userid : "RPM Fusion nonfree
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/04/2021 02:09, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On F33, yum update gives me
...
(195/196): vim-common-8.2.2787-1.fc33.x86_64.rp 3.6 MB/s | 6.7 MB 00:01
(196/196): java-11-openjdk-headless-11.0.11.0.9 2.4 MB/s | 38 MB 00:15
[DRPM] libburn-1.5.4-1
On 26/04/2021 02:09, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On F33, yum update gives me
...
(195/196): vim-common-8.2.2787-1.fc33.x86_64.rp 3.6 MB/s | 6.7 MB 00:01
(196/196): java-11-openjdk-headless-11.0.11.0.9 2.4 MB/s | 38 MB 00:15
[DRPM] libburn-1.5.4-1.fc33_1.5.4-2.fc33.x86_64.drpm: done
On F33, yum update gives me
...
(195/196): vim-common-8.2.2787-1.fc33.x86_64.rp 3.6 MB/s | 6.7 MB 00:01
(196/196): java-11-openjdk-headless-11.0.11.0.9 2.4 MB/s | 38 MB 00:15
[DRPM] libburn-1.5.4-1.fc33_1.5.4-2.fc33.x86_64.drpm: done
Folks,
I think I found the issue.
From the thread: "As an example, a token length of 3 would mean that the
following tokens are not allowed in a password for a user with a uid of
"nkinder":
- nki
- kin
- ind
- nde
- der
"
Hi,
I don't post often so it seems I attached this to an old thread. Sorry
folks.
I'm using ds-389 (Version 1.3.4.0; Build number 2015.343.1254) on a
CentOS 7 Server (release 7.4.1708). A week ago I performed a "yum
update" on my system
and now I'm finding that I can't upda
Sorry folks. I thought I was starting a new thread, not adding to the old one.
I'll try to delete this.
___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi,
I'm using ds-389 (Version 1.3.4.0; Build number 2015.343.1254) on a
CentOS 7 Server (release 7.4.1708). A week ago I performed a "yum
update" on my system
and now I'm finding that I can't update (or set) user passwords using
the "passwd" or "ldappasswd&quo
...)
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, John Pilkington <j.p...@tesco.net> wrote:
> On 04/07/16 13:40, bruce wrote:
>
>> Happy 4th guys..
>>
>> I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed,
>> but thought maybe I could get pointers here on this!)
>
On 04/07/16 13:40, bruce wrote:
Happy 4th guys..
I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed,
but thought maybe I could get pointers here on this!)
The laptop runs kernel for elrepo, to be able to use the builtin wifi.
The update process, was the same as usual
On 07/04/2016 04:05 PM, bruce wrote:
Checked for the cards:
cat /proc/asound/cards
What is the output of this?
If you have additional info, feel free to add it, might help someone in
the future!
What is the output of "lspci -v" (just the part for your sound card)?
Also, the output of
On 07/04/2016 05:40 AM, bruce wrote:
Happy 4th guys..
I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed,
but thought maybe I could get pointers here on this!)
The laptop runs kernel for elrepo, to be able to use the builtin wifi.
What wifi chipset is it?
If you're
Hi.
Forgive me for posting here on a centos issue... but, maybe it'll help
someone if they run into the same issue on centos/fed...
Did a yum update yum went through the process, did the update as
expected.
However, after the update.. sound was gone!
Checked for the cards:
cat /proc
Hey Ed.
Thanks for the reply.
For grins, I placed the exclude line in the elrepo file for the yum update
[elrepo]
name=ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Repository - el6
baseurl=http://elrepo.org/linux/elrepo/el6/$basearch/
http://mirrors.coreix.net/elrepo/elrepo/el6/$basearch
.
--- Begin Message ---
On 07/04/16 20:40, bruce wrote:
> Happy 4th guys..
>
> I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed, but
> thought maybe
> I could get pointers here on this!)
>
> The laptop runs kernel for elrepo, to be able to use the builtin
On 07/04/16 20:40, bruce wrote:
> Happy 4th guys..
>
> I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed, but
> thought maybe
> I could get pointers here on this!)
>
> The laptop runs kernel for elrepo, to be able to use the builtin wifi.
>
> The u
Happy 4th guys..
I have a centos 6.5 box with a yum update error. (I know, this is fed, but
thought maybe I could get pointers here on this!)
The laptop runs kernel for elrepo, to be able to use the builtin wifi.
The update process, was the same as usual, as root, run "yum update"
Allegedly, on or about 28 May 2015, Michael Cronenworth sent:
They are harmless. It's notifying you that the Java security policy
files you have are not being overwritten.
Since I don't do it, I'm curious what happens when someone uses a GUI
tool to update or install software. Do they get
On 28/05/15 04:29 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Frank McCormick bea...@videotron.ca
mailto:bea...@videotron.ca wrote:
During todays update of 21 I got several warnings from Yum:
 Updating  :
1:java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.45-39.b14.fc21.i686Â Â
On 05/28/2015 02:11 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
What should I do about these ?
They are harmless. It's notifying you that the Java security policy files you have
are not being overwritten.
If you choose to do anything about it you can delete any old java directory in
/usr/lib/jvm and
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Frank McCormick bea...@videotron.ca
wrote:
During todays update of 21 I got several warnings from Yum:
Updating : 1:java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.45-39.b14.fc21.i686
3/28
warning:
On 28/05/15 04:18 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 05/28/2015 02:11 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
What should I do about these ?
They are harmless. It's notifying you that the Java security policy
files you have are not being overwritten.
If you choose to do anything about it you can delete
During todays update of 21 I got several warnings from Yum:
Updating : 1:java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.45-39.b14.fc21.i686
3/28
warning:
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.45-39.b14.fc21.i386/jre/lib/security/US_export_policy.jar
created as
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bob Goodwin bobgood...@wildblue.net wrote:
I've never used gparted before but so far have managed to shrink the largest
partition 20+ GB. However that is an extended partition and I need to add
space to / [/var/cache/yum/x86_64/21/fedora is what wants more
On 13.03.2015 17:21, Bob Goodwin wrote:
...
If I botch this I can still re-install and start from scratch again but
would prefer not.
Consider these two applications:
Graphical disk usage statistics - Qt/KDE
- https://userbase.kde.org/Filelight
Filelight allows you to quickly understand
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:15 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I am still trying to fix this, just in over my head ...
Run du -h / on your sda3 and skim over the output. Watch out for
directory trees that contain many GB. Is that usage expected?
Especially examine /var. Try to find any runtime files
On 03/13/15 05:51, Frederic Muller wrote:
On 03/13/2015 04:44 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I can't think of the command to show free space?
df -h
-
[root@bobgASRockServer bobg]# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda350G 49G 0 100% /
On 03/13/15 05:51, Frederic Muller wrote:
On 03/13/2015 04:44 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I can't think of the command to show free space?
df -h
-
[root@bobgASRockServer bobg]# df -h /var/cache/yum/x86_64/21/fedora
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda350G 49G
On 03/13/15 05:28, Michael Schwendt wrote:
You forgot to show how much free space there_is_.
I can't think of the command to show free space?
Then, after you've done that, run yum clean metadata and retry.
Also check the directory access permission bits -- just in case.
-
I did that first
On 03/13/2015 04:44 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I can't think of the command to show free space?
df -h
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct:
I tried to yum update this computer and got the following error:
One of the configured repositories failed (Fedora 21 - x86_64),
and yum doesn't have enough cached data to continue. At this point the
only
safe thing yum can do is fail. There are a few ways to work fix
On 03/13/2015 06:04 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda350G 49G 0 100% /
Ok, there is the problem. Not sure what's going on or what has filled
that?
I need more coffee ...
Thank you,
mine looks like
[root@pauls-server backups]#
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 05:24:13 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I tried to yum update this computer and got the following error:
One of the configured repositories failed (Fedora 21 - x86_64),
and yum doesn't have enough cached data to continue. At this point the
only
safe thing yum can do
Hey Bob,
Try cleaning the yum cache for unused packages...
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Paul Cartwright pbcartwri...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 03/13/2015 06:04 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda350G 49G 0 100% /
Ok, there is
Oops, thank you Michael!
On Mar 13, 2015 11:04 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:29:57 -0300, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
Hey Bob,
Try cleaning the yum cache for unused packages...
By default, Yum does not keep installed packages in the cache. It would
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:29:57 -0300, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
Hey Bob,
Try cleaning the yum cache for unused packages...
By default, Yum does not keep installed packages in the cache. It would be
necessary to edit yum.conf to enable that feature as explained in the
manual.
Plus, Bob has shown
On 03/13/15 10:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Plus, Bob has shown a rather empty Yum cache in the original post.
I am still trying to fix this, just in over my head ...
I've never used gparted before but so far have managed to shrink the
largest partition 20+ GB. However that is an extended
On 09.03.2015 21:27, jd1008 wrote:
...
Error: Package: vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 (rpmfusion-free-updates)
Requires: libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1480/libgpg-error-1.17-2.fc21
tmraz kwizart
--
users mailing list
On 09.03.2015, jd1008 wrote:
--- Package vlc-core.x86_64 0:2.2.0-1.fc21 will be an update
-- Processing Dependency: libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit) for
package: vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64
yum update --exclude=vlc*
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On 03/10/2015 11:19 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 09.03.2015, jd1008 wrote:
--- Package vlc-core.x86_64 0:2.2.0-1.fc21 will be an update
-- Processing Dependency: libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit) for
package: vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64
yum update --exclude=vlc*
Or:
#yum update --skip
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:27:39 -0600
jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
So, how can I proceed with thish clash of dependencies?
Should I completely uninstall vlc and forget about it?
The clash is because vlc requires an earlier version of a library than
the one you want to install. The fix is to
Part of the output:
-- Processing Dependency: kernel-uname-r = 3.18.5-201.fc21.x86_64 for
package: kmod-vhba-3.18.5-201.fc21.x86_64-20140928-1.fc21.x86_64
--- Package kmod-vhba-3.18.5-201.fc21.x86_64.x86_64 0:20140928-1.fc21
will be erased
--- Package vlc-core.x86_64 0:2.2.0-1.fc21 will be
As for alternative terminals, rxvt-unicode-256color (actual name of the
package) is a nice starting point (you can customize it via ~/.Xdefaults).
Another good alternative and more close to what I think you are used to is
lxterminal, the terminal emulator from Xfce.
Then you have Konsole (KDE's
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 10:17 -1000, Jim Lewis wrote:
Well, I'm still trying to figure out how I can run a command to get a
command line from the command line when I don't have a command line.
Yes, I spent all night coming up with that :).
;-\
With some desktops ALT+F2 pops up a dialog box to
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 15:03 -1000, Jim Lewis wrote:
Can you point me to where one of these other terminals is? The only
reason I can still use one or make more is because there were some
already opened before I ran the update.
Often, one can type term in a command line, and get a basic
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 15:03 -1000, Jim Lewis wrote:
I have been running Fedora 14 since it came out and have never
installed an update (well, okay, I manually installed the Shellshock
patch and do run my own custom kernel). I'm still waiting for an
intrusion or something to go wrong. I am
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 15:03 -1000, Jim Lewis wrote:
Can you point me to where one of these other terminals is? The only
reason I can still use one or make more is because there were some
already opened before I ran the update.
Often, one can type term in a command line, and get a basic
, playback of some video files became unstable with
some yum update. I can't recall anything since then.
It happens to me on occasion and certainly does to others as well and so I
don't trust it. I want an update to improve my system, not make it
worse.
Fair enough, but avoiding a problem (while
17, playback of some video files became unstable with
some yum update. I can't recall anything since then.
It happens to me on occasion and certainly does to others as well and so
I
don't trust it. I want an update to improve my system, not make it
worse.
Fair enough, but avoiding a problem
On 02/27/15 11:09, Jim Lewis wrote:
On 02/27/15 09:03, Jim Lewis wrote:
Since I fully expect to have no terminals when I finally reboot I have
opened Bug 1196472 for this issue. They have already begun to look at
the problem.
FWIW, at times I've experienced weird things after updates. The
On 02/27/15 09:03, Jim Lewis wrote:
Since I fully expect to have no terminals when I finally reboot I have
opened Bug 1196472 for this issue. They have already begun to look at
the problem.
FWIW, at times I've experienced weird things after updates. The latest one
was segfaults in ibus
On 02/27/15 09:03, Jim Lewis wrote:
Since I fully expect to have no terminals when I finally reboot I have
opened Bug 1196472 for this issue. They have already begun to look at
the problem.
FWIW, at times I've experienced weird things after updates. The latest
one was segfaults in ibus
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 12:49 -1000, Jim Lewis wrote:
I ran yum update on my Fedora 20 system a few days ago. I normally
don't do this as something always breaks and in this case it was the
Mate-Terminal.
I can't say that I have that experience, it's very rare that an update
breaks something
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 12:49 -1000, Jim Lewis wrote:
I ran yum update on my Fedora 20 system a few days ago. I normally
don't do this as something always breaks and in this case it was the
Mate-Terminal.
I can't say that I have that experience, it's very rare that an update
breaks something
I ran yum update on my Fedora 20 system a few days ago. I normally
don't do this as something always breaks and in this case it was the
Mate-Terminal. I already had a few terminals open so I can still use the
system. Clicking on either the Terminal icon in the panel, or using
Applications-Mate
This does not seem much of a problem but I am curious as to why I'm
having this? It seems waiting a while for the kernel to update will
eventually fix things but do I somehow have the wrong version of
virtualbox installed?
Bob
[root@box10 bobg]# yum update
snip
Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin at wildblue.net writes:
This does not seem much of a problem but I am curious as to why I'm
having this? It seems waiting a while for the kernel to update will
eventually fix things but do I somehow have the wrong version of
virtualbox installed?
On 02/12/15 08:49, Andre Robatino wrote:
Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin at wildblue.net writes:
This does not seem much of a problem but I am curious as to why I'm
having this? It seems waiting a while for the kernel to update will
eventually fix things but do I somehow have the wrong version of
Is this just me, or should I wait for package updates??
updated fedora21 x86_64 ..
when I try to update I get:
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: wine-core-1.7.35-3.1.i686 (@home_DarkPlayer_Pipelight)
Requires: libgphoto2_port.so.10(LIBGPHOTO2_5_0)
Removing:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:23:41 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
Is this just me, or should I wait for package updates??
updated fedora21 x86_64 ..
when I try to update I get:
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: wine-core-1.7.35-3.1.i686 (@home_DarkPlayer_Pipelight)
On 02/03/2015 03:24 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:23:41 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
Is this just me, or should I wait for package updates??
updated fedora21 x86_64 ..
when I try to update I get:
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package:
On 01/22/2015 06:28 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 09:36:48PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Fred Smith
fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
I tried yum reinstall for all the kernel bits of the latest (non-
working) kernel, and it said not available
the
kernel panic.
OK, bypassing the yum reinstall errors,I simply booted from a f21 live
image and fsck-ed the whole drive, then booted up the last working
kernel and removed all the kernel*3.14.27*.rpm packages, rebooted,
did yum update and it installed the newer kernel, did a reboot and
find we're
image and fsck-ed the whole drive, then booted up the last working
kernel and removed all the kernel*3.14.27*.rpm packages, rebooted,
did yum update and it installed the newer kernel, did a reboot and
find we're in business. sopmething mjust have failed in the original
install (whenit hung
Hi all!
something went awry during a yum update a little whuile ago. It's
my netbook, still on F19 (yes, I know it's now officially EOL, it
should get an upgrade Real Soon Now, I'm just trying to make-do
for a little while).
So, I did a yum update, and it found a bazillion packages to update
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Jean Jacques chao...@gmail.com wrote:
which version have you updated to?
OK you keep replying to me, but I'm not the original poster, and
you're not being clear with your question: version of what? I have no
idea what you're referring to. The other thing making
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Jean Jacques chao...@gmail.com wrote:
what version?
I don't understand your question.
--
Chris Murphy
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
bad-kernel
yum update
If it fails on boot again, then you'll need to get more info from
the
failed boot if you want to use this kernel. Editing that kernel's
grub
menu entry, and removing boot parameters 'rhgb quiet' should help
expose what the problem
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Fred Smith
fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 09:36:48PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Fred Smith
fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
I tried yum reinstall for all the kernel bits of the latest (non-
which version have you updated to?
2015-01-22 12:46 GMT+08:00 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Jean Jacques chao...@gmail.com wrote:
what version?
I don't understand your question.
--
Chris Murphy
--
users mailing list
all
yum remove bad-kernel
yum update
If it fails on boot again, then you'll need to get more info from the
failed boot if you want to use this kernel. Editing that kernel's grub
menu entry, and removing boot parameters 'rhgb quiet' should help
expose what the problem is. If not, then it gets a bit
boots, but
it's not a half bad idea to force an fsck after such an event. Then:
yum clean all
yum remove bad-kernel
yum update
If it fails on boot again, then you'll need to get more info from the
failed boot if you want to use this kernel. Editing that kernel's grub
menu entry, and removing
Hi,
i've just installed Fedora 21 x64 in a virtualbox (as usual) for test.
while running a yum update command i get cannot retrieve metalink for
repository: fedora/21/x86_64. Please verify its path and try again
it is a fresh install, so i guess the path is missing in yum.conf file.
--
Best
ok i know what is the problem.
for an unknown reason, first i had to write:
yum clean all
and next
yum update
like that everything works well
Best Regards
Alain R.
The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and
confidential and is for the exclusive use of the addressee
I just ran yum update on this F-20 computer and I tried copying some
warnings produced using the usual CTRL-c, my excuse is I just got out of
bed and my dog is nagging me to go out. :-(
I restarted yum with yum update and the result is:
... snip ..
--- Package xfce4-weather
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:37:58 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
I just ran yum update on this F-20 computer and I tried copying some
warnings produced using the usual CTRL-c, my excuse is I just got out of
bed and my dog is nagging me to go out. :-(
I restarted yum with yum
On 10/18/14 20:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
[root@box10 bobg]# rpm -qa nss-softokn-freebl\*
nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64
nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.x86_64
nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.i686
yum erase nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64
yum update
-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64
yum update
That stirred up a lot of action and appears to have restored things to
normal. Glad I waited for help rather than perhaps make things worse.
Thanks all,
Bob
--
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box10 Fedora-20/64bit Linux/XFCE
--
users mailing list
users
-3.17.1-2.fc20.x86_64
nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.i686
yum erase nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64
yum update
That stirred up a lot of action and appears to have restored things to
normal. Glad I waited for help rather than perhaps make things worse.
You might want to peruse
-1.fc20.x86_64
nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.x86_64
nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.1-2.fc20.i686
yum erase nss-softokn-freebl-3.17.2-1.fc20.x86_64
yum update
That stirred up a lot of action and appears to have restored things to
normal. Glad I waited for help rather than perhaps make things worse
On 18.10.2014 14:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
...
This is an updated system as of yesterday and yum downloaded a new 3.17
kernel this morning but has not been booted yet of course.
On 18.10.2014 16:58, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
...
I guess it's safe enough to
On 10/18/14 12:24, poma wrote:
On 18.10.2014 14:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
...
This is an updated system as of yesterday and yum downloaded a new 3.17
kernel this morning but has not been booted yet of course.
On 18.10.2014 16:58, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 18.10.2014 19:05, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 10/18/14 12:24, poma wrote:
On 18.10.2014 14:28, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
...
This is an updated system as of yesterday and yum downloaded a new 3.17
kernel this morning but has not been booted yet of course.
On 10/18/14 13:41, poma wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-13045/kernel-3.16.6-200.fc20
drago01, hreindl, jag dhgutteridge = 4 x Works
Enough?
poma
Ok, done and it survived a reboot!
I usually reboot after any yum update that looks like it may have
changed anything
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:02:44 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
All is happiness and light now ...
I wonder whether you have read about the yum check and package-cleanup
commands before? For example, the package-cleanup --dupes and
package-cleanup --cleandupes options.
--
users
On 10/18/14 16:49, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I wonder whether you have read about the yum check and package-cleanup
commands before? For example, the package-cleanup --dupes and
package-cleanup --cleandupes options.
I just rely on yum to do what's required. I did yum update earlier
For some time now. yum update has been broken. I get the following
message:
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: libdvdcss2-1.2.13-7.fc20.x86_64 (@atrpms)
Requires: /usr/sbin/ldconfig
Removing: glibc-2.18-12.fc20.i686 (@updates)
Not found
On 10/09/2014 09:11 AM, Paul Erickson wrote:
--skip-broken does update some of the packages, but this issue with
glibc has been around for a while. Any thoughts as to how to fix
this, or do I just have to wait?
Yum is not broken. Glibc may be, but yum is just reporting the issue.
Don't blame
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:11:27 -0700, Paul Erickson wrote:
For some time now. yum update has been broken. I get the following
message:
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: libdvdcss2-1.2.13-7.fc20.x86_64 (@atrpms)
Requires: /usr/sbin/ldconfig
Package libdvdcss2
On 09/10/14 10:39 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:11:27 -0700, Paul Erickson wrote:
For some time now. yum update has been broken. I get the following
message:
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: libdvdcss2-1.2.13-7.fc20.x86_64 (@atrpms)
Requires
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:06:15 -0700, Paul Erickson wrote:
Any suggestions as to how I raise this issue with the atrpms maintainers?
http://atrpms.net - http://atrpms.net/support/
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
hi Tim,
On 06/30/14 15:41, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Yes, that's it. When I looked at the man file, a little while ago,
it just didn't jump out at me as batch mode being a cooked output.
do not feel bad. my 'chemo brain' did not recall what i had used
several years ago. i had to do a search for
Tim:
As far as the original poster was concerned, I was thinking that
getting a text file created would be less of a problem than taking a
screenshot, on a system where the CPU was being pegged. It can also
be easier to post pasted text to a mailing list, than deal with
uploading and linking
Hello,
When I run
yum update,
only few packages are update,
fedora is not is the list.
Then I run yum clear all
and again
yum update
and then fedora is in the list of package to update
and the update can be complete.
What is wrong?
Thank
On 07/02/14 05:13, Patrick Dupre wrote:
When I run
yum update,
only few packages are update,
fedora is not is the list.
Then I run yum clear all
and again
yum update
and then fedora is in the list of package to update
and the update can be complete.
What is wrong?
Nothing. The cache
Tim:
Might be easier to just pipe the text output from top to a file, a
few times, and post those text files.
JD:
that would contain cursor postioning codes which would really mess
up the text file.
As the adage says: A picture tells a thousand words.
Hmm, I thought top had an option for a
On 14-06-30 09:19:13, Tim wrote:
...
Hmm, I thought top had an option for a plain text output, but I can't
see anything suitable in the man file. ...
-b
top -bn4 topout
--
TonyN.:'
On 06/30/14 08:19, Tim wrote:
Hmm, I thought top had an option for a plain text output, but I can't
see anything suitable in the man file. Maybe, long ago, when I did
something like that, I just did less -R output (output being the top
text file).
are you thinking of:
-b : Batch
On 06/30/14 10:59, Tony Nelson wrote:
On 14-06-30 09:19:13, Tim wrote:
...
Hmm, I thought top had an option for a plain text output, but I can't
see anything suitable in the man file. ...
-b
top -bn4 topout
i guess i should have run a fresh download before posting. :-)
--
peace
1 - 100 of 717 matches
Mail list logo
