On July 30, 2025 3:20:17 AM GMT-04:00, Dominic Hopf <[email protected]> 
wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>try using the --allowerasing flag, it should at least remove the
>geniuspaste and updatechecker plugin as they're not available anymore
>in
>EPEL9 for some technical reason.
>I wonder why this didn't happen automatically, though. Will need time
>to
>look into the packaging, but there's plenty of it currently.
>
>Regards,
>Dominic
>
>On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 3:54 AM H via Users <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> Running Rocky Linux 9. Geany 2.1 has been released in EPEL. When I
>tried
>> to update my system it complained since apparently geany 2.0 was
>available
>> in @System repository and 2.1 is now in EPEL.
>>
>> The exact error message is:
>> Error:
>>  Problem 1: cannot install both geany-plugins-common-2.1-2.el9.x86_64
>from
>> epel and geany-plugins-common-2.0-3.el9.x86_64 from @System
>>   - package geany-plugins-geniuspaste-2.0-3.el9.x86_64 from @System
>> requires geany-plugins-common = 2.0-3.el9, but none of the providers
>can be
>> installed
>>   - cannot install the best update candidate for package
>> geany-plugins-common-2.0-3.el9.x86_64
>>   - problem with installed package
>> geany-plugins-geniuspaste-2.0-3.el9.x86_64
>>  Problem 2: cannot install both geany-plugins-common-2.1-2.el9.x86_64
>from
>> epel and geany-plugins-common-2.0-3.el9.x86_64 from @System
>>   - package geany-plugins-addons-2.1-2.el9.x86_64 from epel requires
>> geany-plugins-common = 2.1-2.el9, but none of the providers can be
>installed
>>   - package geany-plugins-updatechecker-2.0-3.el9.x86_64 from @System
>> requires geany-plugins-common = 2.0-3.el9, but none of the providers
>can be
>> installed
>>   - cannot install the best update candidate for package
>> geany-plugins-addons-2.0-3.el9.x86_64
>>   - problem with installed package
>> geany-plugins-updatechecker-2.0-3.el9.x86_64
>> (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting
>> packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or
>'--nobest' to
>> use not only best candidate packages)
>>
>> It looks like one way to update would be to include the
>--allowerasing
>> flag, another is presumably to first remove grant 2.0 and then
>install 2.1.
>>
>> I am leaning towards the first, or am I thinking wrong?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>

Thank you, will try that.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to