On Sat, 2017-11-25 at 06:29 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> just did a full upgrade to fedora 27 a few days ago, first couple
> updates worked fine, then this .. thoughts? should i just wait for
> upstream to fix itself?
>
>
> Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package
>
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Ed Greshko wrote:
> What do you get when you add '--best --allowerasing' to command
> line to force their upgrade?
that did it, thank you kindly.
rday
--
Robert P. J. Day
On 11/25/17 19:29, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> just did a full upgrade to fedora 27 a few days ago, first couple
> updates worked fine, then this .. thoughts? should i just wait for
> upstream to fix itself?
>
>
> Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package
> docker-2:1.13.1-2
just did a full upgrade to fedora 27 a few days ago, first couple
updates worked fine, then this .. thoughts? should i just wait for
upstream to fix itself?
Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package
docker-2:1.13.1-26.gitb5e3294.fc27.x86_64
- nothing provides atomic-r
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
> No errors here. Could it be a mirrors problem?
i guess it was ... just tried again and all good.
rday
--
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario,
No errors here. Could it be a mirrors problem?
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015, 15:59 Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 13:46 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i'm sure i'm not the only one seeing this -- "dnf update" failing
> > to
> > access the packages in the subject line. workaroun
On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 13:46 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i'm sure i'm not the only one seeing this -- "dnf update" failing
> to
> access the packages in the subject line. workaround?
What does "failing to access" mean?
poc
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
i'm sure i'm not the only one seeing this -- "dnf update" failing to
access the packages in the subject line. workaround?
rday
--
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
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
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)
>
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
On 11/10/13 10:22 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/11/2013 04:02 PM, Frank wrote:
Updated my 19 installation this morning and ran into errors again.
This is from yum's log:
Oct 11 09:42:25 psacct-6.6.1-6.fc19.i686: ts_done name in te is
usbmuxd should be psacct-6.6.1-6.fc19.i686
Oct 11 09:42:
On 10/11/2013 04:02 PM, Frank wrote:
Updated my 19 installation this morning and ran into errors again.
This is from yum's log:
Oct 11 09:42:09 Updated: gnupg2-2.0.22-1.fc19.i686
Oct 11 09:42:10 Updated: usbmuxd-1.0.8-10.fc19.i686
Oct 11 09:42:11 Updated: psacct-6.6.1-7.fc19.i686
Oct 11 09:42:
Updated my 19 installation this morning and ran into errors again.
This is from yum's log:
Oct 11 09:42:09 Updated: gnupg2-2.0.22-1.fc19.i686
Oct 11 09:42:10 Updated: usbmuxd-1.0.8-10.fc19.i686
Oct 11 09:42:11 Updated: psacct-6.6.1-7.fc19.i686
Oct 11 09:42:11 Updated: libtar-1.2.11-26.fc19.i686
On 24 Mar 2012 at 11:58, les wrote:
Subject:Re: Updates not occurring, manual update errors
out
From: les
To: Michael Schwendt
Date sent: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:58:38 -0700
Copies to: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi, Ed and Michael,
For now I ran manual updates on everything that did not depend on the
GCC stuff (none of that would update anyway.), and now fingers crossed
that we get the other bit done soon. Are any of rest of you having the
same issue?
I was going to ask what would make my
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 01:01:44 -0700, L (les) wrote:
> Hi, everyone,
> I thought I saw this go by on someone else's dime, but I can't find the
> requisite thread now. Googling did not help me. Here is the error
> message:
> ==
> Error: Package: clang-2.
On 03/24/2012 04:21 PM, les wrote:
> I must have typed something wrong in the search last time, because this
> time it came up.
>
> The message from September said to use the following command, but on my
> system I didn't get much joy. Any hints out there?
>
> # yumdownloader evolution-data-serv
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 01:01 -0700, les wrote:
> Hi, everyone,
> I thought I saw this go by on someone else's dime, but I can't find the
> requisite thread now. Googling did not help me. Here is the error
> message:
> ==
> Error: Package: clang-2.9-6.fc
Hi, everyone,
I thought I saw this go by on someone else's dime, but I can't find the
requisite thread now. Googling did not help me. Here is the error
message:
==
Error: Package: clang-2.9-6.fc16.x86_64 (@updates)
Requires: gcc-c++ = 4.6.
Mark Haney wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing these types of failures with the latest selinux
> updates?
>
> libsemanage.semanage_direct_remove: Module dpkg was not found.
> semodule: Failed on dpkg!
> error: %trigger(selinux-policy-strict-2.6.4-21.fc7.noarch) scriptlet
> failed, exit status 1
> libse
21 matches
Mail list logo
