[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Yet More Yum Woe



On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Beartooth <Beartooth swva net> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:03:20 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:08:00 +0000 (UTC), Beartooth wrote:
>        [...]
>> What do you get if you run
>>
>>   rpm --query --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
>>
>> and
>>
>>   repoquery --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
>>
>> ?
>        The first tells me an rpm for gtk-sharp; the second just gives my
> root prompt back.
>
>>
>> In case you don't have repoquery yet, you can find it in the "yum-utils"
>> package.
>
>        I tried "yum install yum-utils" -- it says I have it, and it's
> the latest.
>
>> There has been a gtk-shark2 update recently, and it certainly provides
>> these four things which are complained about.
>>
>> "sysinfo" is not found in the Fedora package collection, however. I
>> wonder whether that might be of importance. If you "rpm -e sysinfo" it
>> and then try yum update again, any change?
>>
>>> Complete!
>>> (1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report'])
>>>
>>>         I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the
>>> error line.
>>>
>>>      It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have
>>> been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to
>>> 2007).
>>>
>>>         So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try.
>>>
>>>         Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good,
>>>         and
>>> urge me strongly not to go there.
>>
>> Still you could choose to go there (and add an exception for the
>> certificate). ;)
>
>        I tried it, and the warnings got stronger; one (Galeon or
> Epiphany) assured me that no honest X,Y, or Z (which seemed to cover 99
> 44/100% of the waterfront among them) would ever ask me to do that.
> That's when I quit and asked here instead. *Can* someone vouch for
> yum.baseurl.org -- including that nobody could be spoofing it??
>
>        I'd've done it if it'd been a site I know; but it isn't.
>
>        [....]
>>> Transaction Summary
>>>
> ================================================================================
>>> Install      0 Package(s)
>>> Update       0 Package(s)
>>> Remove      18 Package(s)
>>>
>>>         Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with
>>>         things
>>> named sysinfo nor gnome-desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some
>>> such thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time
>>> with that ...)
>
>        Now, after Ron Siven's assurance here, I have removed "sysinfo"
> -- and everything seems fine. Some sort of orphan from an old install,
> maybe ....
>
>> If it prints a list of what packages it will remove, it won't silently
>> remove itself.
>
>        Yes; many a time have I taken advantage of that.
>
>> What makes "yum remove ..." dangerous is that other dependency chains
>> are much longer and would lead to removing many more packages. Paying
>> close attention to the printed list and the y/n safety check is very
>> important.
>
>        Yes!!
>
>        Many many thanks!
>
> --
> Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
> Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

It will probably do you or anyone who upgrades a system to run
`package-cleanup --orphans' to find old packages no longer resident in
enabled repositories.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]