Re: NOKEY warning from yum update

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

Re: NOKEY warning from 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 reposi

Re: NOKEY warning from yum update

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

Re: NOKEY warning from yum update

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

NOKEY warning from yum update

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

Re: yum update issue..

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, John Pilkington 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!) >> >> T

Re: yum update issue..

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, as

Re: no sound after yum update

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 "apl

Re: yum update issue..

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&#x

no sound after yum update

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

Re: yum update issue..

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

FW: yum update issue..

. --- 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

Re: yum update issue..

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

yum update issue..

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" ne

Re: Yum update warning

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 no

Re: Yum update warning

On 28/05/15 04:29 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Frank McCormick 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.i686      Â

Re: Yum update warning

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Frank McCormick 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: > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.45-39.b14.fc21.i386/jre/lib/securit

Re: Yum update 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 an

Re: Yum update warning

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 overwr

Yum update warning

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 /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-ope

Re: Yum update failure -_-

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 e

Re: Yum update failure -

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

Re: Yum update failure -

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bob Goodwin 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 room] and I > don't unde

Re: Yum update failure -

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 par

Re: Yum update failure -

Oops, thank you Michael! On Mar 13, 2015 11:04 AM, "Michael Schwendt" 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 be > nece

Re: Yum update failure -

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 sho

Re: Yum update failure -

Hey Bob, Try cleaning the yum cache for unused packages... On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Paul Cartwright 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 the problem.

Re: Yum update failure -

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 b

Re: Yum update failure -

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 0

Re: Yum update failure -

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% / devtmpf

Re: Yum update failure -

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: http://fedoraprojec

Re: Yum update failure -

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

Re: Yum update failure -

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 > onl

Yum update failure -

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 "

Re: yum update problem with vlc

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

Re: yum update problem with vlc

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.fedor

Re: yum update problem with vlc

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

Re: yum update problem with vlc

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:27:39 -0600 jd1008 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 wait until rpmfus

yum update problem with vlc

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

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

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 ter

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

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 t

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore (SOLVED)

> >> 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,

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

> 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

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

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 b

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

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

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

> 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 segfaul

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

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

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

ot;very rare" mean? So it has happened to you on occasion? > > Way back on Fedora 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 >>

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

happened to you on occasion? Way back on Fedora 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

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

> 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

Re: Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

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'

Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore

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 usi

Re: Yum update Vbox -

On 02/12/15 08:49, Andre Robatino wrote: Bob Goodwin 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 instal

Re: Yum update Vbox -

Bob Goodwin 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? https://admin.fedoraproject.

Yum update Vbox -

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

Re: yum update errors wine-core-SOLVED

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: wine-core-1

Re: yum update errors wine-core

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) >

yum update errors wine-core

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: li

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

ed a kernel panic; you >> said booting caused a kernel panic. I'm not asking about the kernel >> panic, I'm asking about the yum reinstall error. You can tell I'm >> asking about the yum reinstall error because of what I quoted. So >> don't change conte

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

tall error. You can tell I'm > asking about the yum reinstall error because of what I quoted. So > don't change contexts to the kernel panic when I didn't ask about the > kernel panic. OK, bypassing the yum reinstall errors,I simply booted from a f21 live image and fsck-ed

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

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 wrote: I tried "yum reinstall" for all the kernel bits of the latest (non- working) kernel, and it said "not available" for all but (I think it wa

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:28 PM, 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 >> wrote: >> > I tried "yum reinstall" for all the kernel bits of the latest (non- >> > working) kernel, and it said "not available" f

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Jean Jacques 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 this confusing is

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

is OK if the system 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 k

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

stem is OK if the system 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 > fail

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

which version have you updated to? 2015-01-22 12:46 GMT+08:00 Chris Murphy : > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Jean Jacques wrote: > > what version? > > I don't understand your question. > > -- > Chris Murphy > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change s

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Jean Jacques 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 Fedora Code of Conduc

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

e these days the filesystem is OK if the system 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 > faile

Re: failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

fter 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 boot parameters 'rhgb quiet' shoul

failed yum update, new kernel won't boot

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 baz

Re: yum update issue

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

yum update issue

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

Re: Yum update accident -

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&

Re: Yum update accident -

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. --

Re: Yum update accident -

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 cha

Re: Yum update accident -

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 o

Re: Yum update accident -

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: ...

Re: Yum update accident -

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

Re: Yum update accident -

-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

Re: Yum update accident -

eebl-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 > > That stirred up a lot of action and appears to have restor

Re: Yum update accident -

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. Thanks all, Bob -- http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD box10 Fedora-20/64bit Linux/XFCE -- users mailin

Re: Yum update accident -

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

Re: Yum update accident -

der repository contents where only the previous version is available. "yum clean metadata" then retrying sometimes fixes it together with either another "yum update" or a "yum distro-sync" (which may downgrade packages temporarily, however, so be careful!). I thought perh

Re: Yum update accident -

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 res

Yum update accident -

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

Re: F20 "yum update" broken

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: https://admin.fe

Re: F20 "yum update" broken

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.x8

Re: F20 "yum update" broken

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) > Requir

Re: F20 "yum update" broken

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 blam

F20 "yum update" broken

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)

Re: yum update

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.

yum update

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

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

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 an

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

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 fo

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

Tim: >> 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). g: > are you thinking of: > >-b : Batch mode oper

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

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 out

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

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 : Bat

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

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.:'

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

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 optio

Re: yum update took 99.99% of cpu

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 18:54 -0600, JD wrote: > > Thus I will set up 4 gnome terminals on a desktop workspace. > > 1 will run yum, 2 will run top, 3 will run iotop > > and in 4 I will issue the command > > /usr/bin/gnome-screenshot > > ​ -f /tmp/scree

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >