On 6/7/25 21:13, George N. White III wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 10:07 PM mailto:fed...@eyal.emu.id.au>> wrote:
Today I did the usual 'dnf update' on a VM system.
As part of the update I received kernel-6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
"VM System" is too vague: whic
On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 10:07 PM wrote:
> Today I did the usual 'dnf update' on a VM system.
> As part of the update I received kernel-6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
>
"VM System" is too vague: which VM?
>
> However, after the upgrades were done, the last console mes
On Sun, 2025-07-06 at 08:49 +0100, Barry wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jul 2025, at 02:07, fed...@eyal.emu.id.au wrote:
> >
> > However, after the upgrades were done, the last console message was
> >>>> Running post-transaction scriptlet:
> > kernel-core-0:
> On 6 Jul 2025, at 02:07, fed...@eyal.emu.id.au wrote:
>
> However, after the upgrades were done, the last console message was
>>>> Running post-transaction scriptlet:
> kernel-core-0:6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
> after which the system was hard locked (about 45m...)
Today I did the usual 'dnf update' on a VM system.
As part of the update I received kernel-6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
However, after the upgrades were done, the last console message was
>>> Running post-transaction scriptlet:
kernel-core-0:6.15.4-200.fc42.x86_64
after w
Hey All,
I would like to invite all of you to participate in the Kernel 6.15
Test week is happening from 2025-06-08 to 2025-06-09. It's
fairly simple, head over to the wiki [0] and read in detail about the
test week and simply run the test case mentioned in[1] and enter your
results.
As
Greg Woods composed on 2025-05-02 20:58 (UTC-0600):
> Terry Hurlbut wrote:
>> one attempt I made to update packages with it, ended
> with a kernel entry in the boot loader (GRUB?) that causes a panic
>> when I try to load it.
> I have run into this. For some reason,
On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 4:58 PM Terry Hurlbut wrote:
> one attempt I made to update packages with it, ended
with a kernel entry in the boot loader (GRUB?) that causes a panic
> when I try to load it.
>
I have run into this. For some reason, the package files are installed,
but it
ages with it, ended
> with a kernel entry in the boot loader (GRUB?) that causes a panic
> when I try to load it. This is Kernal Build 6:14.4 for the x86_64
> architecture.
>
> If I didn't retain two known good kernels with every upgrade, I would
> have "bricked" this c
On 5/2/25 3:58 PM, Terry Hurlbut wrote:
The worst problem I have so far discovered about Fedora 42 is that the
DNF updater does not work as it once did. The "updates ready" icon no
longer shows, and one attempt I made to update packages with it, ended
with a kernel entry in the boot lo
Everyone:
The worst problem I have so far discovered about Fedora 42 is that the
DNF updater does not work as it once did. The "updates ready" icon no
longer shows, and one attempt I made to update packages with it, ended
with a kernel entry in the boot loader (GRUB?) that causes a pa
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 10:22 PM Neal Becker wrote:
>
>> > On an AMD workstation I am unable to update 41->42. When I try (using
>> > recommended
>> > sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=42
>> > sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot)
>> >
&
e reboot)
> >
> > On reboot, I get
> > Kernel panic! (Attempted to kill init)
>
> That sounds like an existing issue. dnf doesn't do anything other than
> download the rpm files and set a flag to run the upgrade process instead
> of a normal boot. It will use th
On 4/16/25 11:51 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
On an AMD workstation I am unable to update 41->42. When I try (using
recommended
sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=42
sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot)
On reboot, I get
Kernel panic! (Attempted to kill init)
That sounds like an exist
On an AMD workstation I am unable to update 41->42. When I try (using
recommended
sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=42
sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot)
On reboot, I get
Kernel panic! (Attempted to kill init)
I managed to recover but just doing a clean re-install. I was able
Am 21.03.2025 um 12:21:37 Uhr schrieb Robert McBroom via users:
> What does it mean that the RTL8812AU device is seen but not enabled?
Check if the kernel module is being loaded.
lsusb -t
--
Gruß
Marco
Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1742556097mu...@cartoonies.
001 Device 002: ID 0bda:8812 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. RTL8812AU
802.11a/b/g/n/ac 2T2R DB WLAN Adapter
Bus 001 Device 005: ID 0bda:b812 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. RTL88x2bu [AC1200
Techkey]
The RTL88x2bu adapter connects. The RTL8812AU is not on the network list. It
connected with the kernel
02: ID 0bda:8812 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. RTL8812AU
> 802.11a/b/g/n/ac 2T2R DB WLAN Adapter
>
> Bus 001 Device 005: ID 0bda:b812 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. RTL88x2bu
> [AC1200 Techkey]
>
> The RTL88x2bu adapter connects. The RTL8812AU is not on the network list. It
> co
Device 005: ID 0bda:b812 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. RTL88x2bu
[AC1200 Techkey]
The RTL88x2bu adapter connects. TheRTL8812AU is not on the network list.
It connected with the kernel 6.12.x series using a driver src from .git
and dkms.
What does it mean that the RTL8812AU device is seen but
> On 26 Feb 2025, at 08:05, lejeczek via users
> wrote:
>
> How to "fix" it back to "normal" ?
Use grubby and set the index to boot to be 0 I think is the fix
See grubby --help or man grubby for command line details.
Barry
--
___
users mailing l
Hi guys.
Some while I go my Fedora lost, dropped it's way to set
newly installed kernel to be the default one.
Whatever I set manually to be default, remains default
regardless of new kernels installed later - which was not
the case, should not be the case, right?
How to "fix&q
Hey All,
I would like to invite all of you to participate in the Kernel 6.13
Test week is happening from 2025-02-02 to 2025-02-09. It's
fairly simple, head over to the wiki [0] and read in detail about the
test week and simply run the test case mentioned in[1] and enter your
results.
As
All;
I have been struggling with this for awhile, I saw a post awhile back
that indicated sound issues would be fixed in kernel 6.12
I have done a clean install, and executed a dnf update, which installed
kernel 6.12 however I still have no sound from the laptop speakers.
Can someone help
Hey All,
I would like to invite all of you to participate in the Kernel 6.12
Test week is happening from 2024-12-01 to 2024-12-08. It's
fairly simple, head over to the wiki [0] and read in detail about the
test week and simply run the test case mentioned in[1] and enter your
results.
As
On 11/9/24 3:59 PM, home user via users wrote:
On 11/8/24 10:53 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 11/8/24 8:46 PM, home user via users wrote:
I thought that in the case of a file that IS owned by a package, rpm -qf was
displaying the name of the owned file. So I was expecting a file name to
appear o
Hi All,
I usually do not pay much attention to the kernel entries
on my grub boot screen, but after upgrading my shop computer
from FC40 to FC41 I looked. Oh Goody, I have kernels on
my geub boot screen all the way back to FC32!!! 3/4 of my
screen was filled with kernels!
Checking "r
On 11/9/24 5:08 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2024-11-08 at 21:53 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 11/8/24 8:46 PM, home user via users wrote:
I thought that in the case of a file that IS owned by a package, rpm -qf
was displaying the name of the owned file. So I was expecting a file
name
On 11/8/24 10:53 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 11/8/24 8:46 PM, home user via users wrote:
I thought that in the case of a file that IS owned by a package, rpm -qf was
displaying the name of the owned file. So I was expecting a file name to
appear once, not 2000+ times!
It's now occurring to me
On Fri, 2024-11-08 at 21:53 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 11/8/24 8:46 PM, home user via users wrote:
> > I thought that in the case of a file that IS owned by a package, rpm -qf
> > was displaying the name of the owned file. So I was expecting a file
> > name to appear once, not 2000+ times!
>
On 11/8/24 8:46 PM, home user via users wrote:
I thought that in the case of a file that IS owned by a package, rpm -qf
was displaying the name of the owned file. So I was expecting a file
name to appear once, not 2000+ times!
It's now occurring to me that in the case of a file that is owned
(multiple
40-line screens per file). These are (of course) owned by packages. I noticed
kernel-modules-core-6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64 to be listed an especially large
number of times.
Why? Can this repetition be prevented?
I'm not sure what you mean. Each file should only get listed once. If yo
are (of course) owned by
packages. I noticed kernel-modules-core-6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64 to be
listed an especially large number of times.
Why? Can this repetition be prevented?
I'm not sure what you mean. Each file should only get listed once.
If you see otherwise, please show what y
ory and a few
small text files.
Worked fine.
Tried this on /lib/modules/6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64/.
Some files got listed (file names only) a huge number of times (multiple
40-line screens per file). These are (of course) owned by packages. I noticed
kernel-modules-core-6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64 t
with a subdirectory and a few
small text files.
Worked fine.
Tried this on /lib/modules/6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64/.
Some files got listed (file names only) a huge number of times (multiple
40-line screens per file). These are (of course) owned by packages. I noticed
kernel-modules-core-6.11.5-200
rked fine.
Tried this on /lib/modules/6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64/.
Some files got listed (file names only) a huge number of times (multiple
40-line screens per file). These are (of course) owned by packages. I
noticed kernel-modules-core-6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64 to be listed an
especially large number
| xargs -0 rpm -qf
> >
>
> I cooked up a simple test /lib/modules/ directory with a subdirectory and a
> few small text files.
> Worked fine.
>
> Tried this on /lib/modules/6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64/.
> Some files got listed (file names only) a huge number of times (multipl
0.x86_64/.
Some files got listed (file names only) a huge number of times (multiple
40-line screens per file). These are (of course) owned by packages. I noticed
kernel-modules-core-6.11.5-200.fc40.x86_64 to be listed an especially large
number of times.
Why? Can thi
On 11/8/24 10:15 AM, home user via users wrote:
While doing those "rpm -qf" commands, 2 questions came to mind.
1. Suppose [dir] has sub-directories. If I do "rpm -qf [dir]/*", will
it also check [dir]'s sub-directories?
If no, then
2. How do get the sub-directories checked without having to d
On 11/7/24 10:22 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 11/7/24 4:15 PM, home user via users wrote:
On 11/6/24 10:15 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
-bash.11[~]:
I still have old kernel files in /boot:
-bash.17[~]: cd /boot
-bash.18[boot]: ls *-6.10.*
config-6.10.12-100.fc39.x86_64
On 11/7/24 4:15 PM, home user via users wrote:
On 11/6/24 10:15 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
[snip]
`package-cleanup --oldkernels --count=2` might help with that. It
removes all old kernels except the current kernel and the one before
it.
-bash.6[~]: package-cleanup --oldkernels --count=2
On 11/6/24 10:15 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
[snip]
`package-cleanup --oldkernels --count=2` might help with that. It
removes all old kernels except the current kernel and the one before
it.
-bash.6[~]: package-cleanup --oldkernels --count=2
package-cleanup has to be executed with one of the
On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 5:04 PM home user via users
wrote:
>
> On 11/6/24 11:12 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> Related, be sure to look in /lib/modules for old kernel artifacts.
> >>> There have been several bugs related to proceccessing old kernel
On 11/6/24 11:12 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 5:43 PM home user via users
wrote:
On 10/25/24 12:45 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 8:42 PM home user via users
wrote:
(f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.3)
Selected command
On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 5:43 PM home user via users
wrote:
>
> On 10/25/24 12:45 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 8:42 PM home user via users
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> (f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.
On 10/25/24 12:45 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 8:42 PM home user via users
wrote:
(f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.3)
Selected command output...
-bash.2[~]: rpm -qa kernel
kernel-6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64
kernel-6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_64
-bash.3
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 8:42 PM home user via users
wrote:
>
> (f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.3)
>
> Selected command output...
>
> -bash.2[~]: rpm -qa kernel
> kernel-6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64
> kernel-6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_64
> -bash.3[
(updated and revised)
On 10/23/24 5:51 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Oct 23, 2024, at 17:56, home user via users
wrote:
-bash.1[~]: rpm -qa kernel [complete]
kernel-6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_64
kernel-6.11.4-201.fc40.x86_64
-bash.2[~]:
-bash.2[~]: rpm -qa kernel-core [complete]
kernel
On 10/23/24 2:56 PM, home user via users wrote:
On 10/23/24 3:18 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Oct 22, 2024, at 20:42, home user via users
wrote:
(f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.3)
Selected command output...
-bash.2[~]: rpm -qa kernel
kernel-6.10.12-200.fc40
On Oct 23, 2024, at 17:56, home user via users
wrote:
>
> On 10/23/24 3:18 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>>> On Oct 22, 2024, at 20:42, home user via users
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.3)
>>&g
On 10/23/24 3:18 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Oct 22, 2024, at 20:42, home user via users
wrote:
(f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.3)
Selected command output...
-bash.2[~]: rpm -qa kernel
kernel-6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64
kernel-6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_64
-bash.3
On Oct 22, 2024, at 20:42, home user via users
wrote:
>
> (f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.3)
>
> Selected command output...
>
> -bash.2[~]: rpm -qa kernel
> kernel-6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64
> kernel-6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_64
> -bash.3[~
(f-40; gnome; stand-alone dual-boot workstation; kernel 6.11.3)
Selected command output...
-bash.2[~]: rpm -qa kernel
kernel-6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64
kernel-6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_64
-bash.3[~]:
-bash.3[~]: rpm -qa kernel-core
kernel-core-6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64
kernel-core-6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_64
On 10/18/24 3:55 PM, home user via users wrote:
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
I currently have kernel version:
- - - - - -
-bash.2[~]: uname -a
Linux coyote 6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Sep 30 21:38:25
UTC 2024 x86_64 GNU/Linux
-bash.3[~]:
- - - - - -
Yesterday
On Oct 19, 2024, at 20:52, Bob Marčan via users
wrote:
> A kind of windows registry and systemd are a good example of this.
> And don't apologize systemd for how much the boot time has shortened.
> How often does the system need start or restart?
> Not to mention that it looks like systemd will r
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 17:25:06 -0600
"home user via users" wrote:
> On 10/19/24 2:07 PM, Bob Marčan via users wrote:
> > With all these problems with Nvidia, the best thing to do would be to
> > reject all the hardware it uses if possible.
> > The first condition for my purchases is that the equip
On 10/19/24 2:07 PM, Bob Marčan via users wrote:
With all these problems with Nvidia, the best thing to do would be to reject
all the hardware it uses if possible.
The first condition for my purchases is that the equipment has nothing from
this ignorant company.
BR
yeah, I hoping that somet
!
That's good to know. Please will you post the boot command line shown by
sudo dmesg | grep -i boot
on your dual-boot system running the new f40 kernel and the nvidia 470xx
driver ?
Thanks,
John P
-bash.1[~]: dmesg | grep -i boot
[0.00] Command line:
BOOT_IMAGE=(hd0,m
post the boot command line shown by
sudo dmesg | grep -i boot
on your dual-boot system running the new f40 kernel and the nvidia
470xx driver ?
Thanks,
John P
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an ema
With all these problems with Nvidia, the best thing to do would be to reject
all the hardware it uses if possible.
The first condition for my purchases is that the equipment has nothing from
this ignorant company.
BR
--
___
users mailing list -- use
On 10/18/24 3:55 PM, home user via users wrote:
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
I currently have kernel version:
- - - - - -
-bash.2[~]: uname -a
Linux coyote 6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Sep 30 21:38:25
UTC 2024 x86_64 GNU/Linux
-bash.3[~]:
- - - - - -
Yesterday
On 19/10/2024 01:10, home user via users wrote:
On 10/18/24 4:37 PM, John Pilkington wrote:
On 18/10/2024 22:55, home user via users wrote:
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
I have not been able to figure out how the rpmfusion nvidia version
numbers relate to the kernel version numbers
iMac which only has Nvidia and needs the 470xx driver.
Nvidia has always been "high maintenance", and has reached the
point at which I don't have the time to deal with the Nvidia issues.
> >>
> >> I have not been able to figure out how the rpmfusion nvidia version
>
On 10/18/24 4:37 PM, John Pilkington wrote:
On 18/10/2024 22:55, home user via users wrote:
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
I currently have kernel version:
- - - - - -
-bash.2[~]: uname -a
Linux coyote 6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Sep 30 21:38:25
UTC 2024 x86_64
On 18/10/2024 22:55, home user via users wrote:
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
I currently have kernel version:
- - - - - -
-bash.2[~]: uname -a
Linux coyote 6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Sep 30
21:38:25 UTC 2024 x86_64 GNU/Linux
-bash.3[~]:
- - - - - -
Yesterday
(f40; gnome; standalone workstation)
I currently have kernel version:
- - - - - -
-bash.2[~]: uname -a
Linux coyote 6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Sep 30 21:38:25
UTC 2024 x86_64 GNU/Linux
-bash.3[~]:
- - - - - -
Yesterday morning, I wanted to do my weekly patches (dnf
On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 10:48 +0200, Jouk Jansen via users wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a virtual machine (KVM/Qemu) on a Fedora host, that uses an internet
> device by using the passthrough option. However after upgrading from kernel
> 6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64 to 6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_
Hi all,
I have a virtual machine (KVM/Qemu) on a Fedora host, that uses an internet
device by using the passthrough option. However after upgrading from kernel
6.10.12-200.fc40.x86_64 to 6.11.3-200.fc40.x86_64, The virtual machine
refuses to run, telling me that I have to check the IOMMU option
Le jeu. 3 oct. 2024 à 13:56, Jonathan Billings a écrit :
>
> On Oct 3, 2024, at 06:12, Andras Simon wrote:
> >
> > Should I still uninstall systemd-boot-unsigned?
> >
> > What still puzzles me is that rpm -V kernel-core-6.10.11 didn't show
> > any problem
Hey folks,
This is a gentle reminder, that Kernel 6.11 test week is underway. If you
are someone who
is interested; give it a try today!
Here are a few resources that will help you get started:
Wiki : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2024-09-29_Kernel_6.11_Test_Week
Results: https
On Oct 3, 2024, at 06:12, Andras Simon wrote:
>
> Should I still uninstall systemd-boot-unsigned?
>
> What still puzzles me is that rpm -V kernel-core-6.10.11 didn't show
> any problem, even though some files it contains were missing. I can
> still see this with an earlie
27;s no sdubby, but systemd-boot-unsigned is installed. (On
another, working F39, there's no systemd-boot-unsigned or
systemd-boot).
>
> The sdubby package drops a file in /etc/kernel that causes the %post script
> of the kernel-common package to install kernels and bootloaderspec entr
On Oct 1, 2024, at 11:42, Andras Simon wrote:
>
> A few months ago I upgraded a laptop to Fedora 39 but haven't used it
> since, except for updating it a few times. But now I noticed that it
> can only boot into an fc38 kernel. (This may have been like this since
> upgradi
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 2:14 AM Andras Simon wrote:
> Le mer. 2 oct. 2024 à 02:31, Tim via users
> a écrit :
>
> > I wonder if you ended up with two /boots at some stage? With the newer
> > kernels, etc, installed into the currently unseen one.
> >
> > Do you have an unmounted /boot partition?
>
Tim:
> > I wonder if you ended up with two /boots at some stage? With the newer
> > kernels, etc, installed into the currently unseen one.
> >
> > Do you have an unmounted /boot partition?
Andras Simon:
> How do I check? mount | grep boot
> returns
> /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext4
> /dev/sda2 on /
> On 1 Oct 2024, at 16:43, Andras Simon wrote:
>
> What can/should I do?
What is the output of
lsblk -f
What is the output of
find /boot
Barry
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to use
Le mer. 2 oct. 2024 à 02:31, Tim via users
a écrit :
> I wonder if you ended up with two /boots at some stage? With the newer
> kernels, etc, installed into the currently unseen one.
>
> Do you have an unmounted /boot partition?
How do I check? mount | grep boot
returns
/dev/sda1 on /boot type
On Tue, 2024-10-01 at 16:50 +0200, Andras Simon wrote:
> A few months ago I upgraded a laptop to Fedora 39 but haven't used it
> since, except for updating it a few times. But now I noticed that it
> can only boot into an fc38 kernel. (This may have been like this since
> upgradin
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 12:42 PM Andras Simon wrote:
> A few months ago I upgraded a laptop to Fedora 39 but haven't used it
> since, except for updating it a few times. But now I noticed that it
> can only boot into an fc38 kernel. (This may have been like this since
> upgradin
A few months ago I upgraded a laptop to Fedora 39 but haven't used it
since, except for updating it a few times. But now I noticed that it
can only boot into an fc38 kernel. (This may have been like this since
upgrading, it's just that I didn't notice it.) In fact, there are no
rbes.fedorapeople.org/testweek/kerneltest-6.11.1.iso (which is
F40) . The test week will benefit all reports of F40 and F39. For F41,
please install this rpm
https://jforbes.fedorapeople.org/testweek/kernel-tests-20240322-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
.
--
___
users
Hey All,
I would like to invite all of you to participate in the Kernel 6.11
Test week is happening from 2024-09-29 to 2024-10-05. It's
fairly simple, head over to the wiki [0] and read in detail about the
test week and simply run the test case mentioned in[1] and enter your
results.
As
Well, looks like I spoke too soon when I said that Arch works 'fine' without
enabling '3D Acceleration'. Yes, I get to a graphical login screen on Arch
without that setting, but when I actually try to log in I never get to a usable
desktop state. In order to achieve that, I also have to enable t
That's good to hear. By now though, I fully expect this to be a VMWare bug (of
a graphical nature it seems), that VMware needs to fix.
For my Arch VM, I did not have '3D Acceleration' enabled; but I just checked,
and turning it on seems to work fine as well.
I have no idea what's going on with
On 07.09.2024 14:18, Maarten Hoes wrote:
I have no idea when this will be fixed (or not). However, I personally was able to
work around it by *enabling* '3D Acceleration" in the VM settings (under
display) for my Fedora 40 VM. You could try to see if that works for you.
I enabled '3D Accelera
I have no idea when this will be fixed (or not). However, I personally was able
to work around it by *enabling* '3D Acceleration" in the VM settings (under
display) for my Fedora 40 VM. You could try to see if that works for you.
--
___
users mailing l
just what had been said by some else
(Maarten Hoes )
"Just to do some verification, I tried running an Arch Linux guest with
kernel 6.10.6 using the same VMWare Workstation install, and that boots
perfectly fine.
So whatever this turns out to be, it's not just a simple 'VMW
On my Thinkpad T14s Gen 4 AMD with Fedora 40, when I am using it
unplugged and close the lid to sleep, it wakes back up when I plug it in
to charge. This didn't happen with 6.9 and before. Not really sure how
to debug this; I opened a BZ, but also curious if anybody else is seeing
something simil
I wrote:
>Now I'll try to go back through my logs and try to see when sdubby
>got installed and why.
Jonathan Billings wrote:
>Once you've verified it boots into new kernels, feel free to delete
>the /boot/efi/$MACHINE_ID and /boot/efi/entries directory, so you
>aren't wasting space on the EFI vol
Dave Close wrote:
> Now I'll try to go back through my logs and try to see when sdubby
> got installed and why.
Once you've verified it boots into new kernels, feel free to delete the
/boot/efi/$MACHINE_ID and /boot/efi/entries directory, so you aren't wasting
space on the EFI volume or preventi
"Jonathan Billings" wrote:
>I suspect I know why this happened.
>
>Do you have the "sdubby" or "systemd-boot-unsigned" package installed
>(which brings in sdubby)?
>
>The sdubby package installs an /etc/kernel/install.conf that
>tells the kernel
n?
I suspect I know why this happened.
Do you have the "sdubby" or "systemd-boot-unsigned" package installed (which
brings in sdubby)?
The sdubby package installs an /etc/kernel/install.conf that tells the
kernel-install script that runs in the kernel-core %post to install kerne
> On 13 Aug 2024, at 17:58, Dave Close wrote:
>
> Comparing your list to mine, I was struck by the size of /boot/efi.
> The size of mine is inflated by one directory of 288M,
> /boot/efi/7cf63543075b47d48d09f1649641c3a1. I don't know what that
> is or why it's there. But the contents look sugge
oot 15890792 2024-08-01 04:04 linux
/boot/efi/7cf63543075b47d48d09f1649641c3a1/7.00:
total 0
>> dkms: running auto installation service for kernel 6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
>> dkms: autoinstall for kernel 6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64 Done.
>
>What are you using dkms for? I wonder if that
.9.12-200.fc40.x86_64
11M /boot/vmlinuz-0-rescue-23861aed63d748da85011d84ee28e601
16M /boot/vmlinuz-6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
16M /boot/vmlinuz-6.9.11-200.fc40.x86_64
16M /boot/vmlinuz-6.9.12-200.fc40.x86_64
> dkms: running auto installation service for kernel 6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
francis.montag...@inria.fr wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:30:14 -0700 Dave Close wrote:
>
>> # dnf -y reinstall kernel-core-6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
>
>> So, what happened to kernel 6.10.3-200? RPM -V says the package is
>> complete but the files are not there!
>
>
John Pilkington wrote:
>On 11/08/2024 18:30, Dave Close wrote:
>> I can't make sense of this output, can you?
>>
>> # rpm -q kernel-core
>> kernel-core-6.9.9-100.fc39.x86_64
>> kernel-core-6.9.12-200.fc40.x86_64
>> kernel-core-6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
&
Hi.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:30:14 -0700 Dave Close wrote:
> # dnf -y reinstall kernel-core-6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
> So, what happened to kernel 6.10.3-200? RPM -V says the package is
> complete but the files are not there!
The missing files are ghost files (for RPM, see:
rpm -Vv ke
On 11/08/2024 18:30, Dave Close wrote:
I can't make sense of this output, can you?
# rpm -q kernel-core
kernel-core-6.9.9-100.fc39.x86_64
kernel-core-6.9.12-200.fc40.x86_64
kernel-core-6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
That kernel runs for me, but I have romm for only two.
How big is
I can't make sense of this output, can you?
# rpm -q kernel-core
kernel-core-6.9.9-100.fc39.x86_64
kernel-core-6.9.12-200.fc40.x86_64
kernel-core-6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
# rpm -V kernel-core-6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
# dnf -y reinstall kernel-core-6.10.3-200.fc40.x86_64
Last metadata expir
an older version.
We have an issue in that the kernels appear to require the command
line option "rd.auto" for the older systems to boot with the rootfs
using software raid. When we use grub2-mkconfig (or update a kernel
which I guess also uses this) the produced /boot/grub2/gru
1 - 100 of 2517 matches
Mail list logo
