users January 2014

users@lists.fedoraproject.org

228 participants
337 discussions

Fedora - Windows 8/8.1 dual boot
by Quicksort 18 Jan '14

18 Jan '14

Has anyone successfully installed Fedora 18, 19 or 20 in dual boot with Windows 8/8.1 ? How does the installation process differ from setting up a Fedora/Windows 7 or XP dual boot ? Are there pitfalls one should know about ?

6 6

Fix for bz 1043212 (/var/run/nologin) timeframe?
by Dan Irwin 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

Hello, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1043212#c24 Being hit by the mysteriously appearing /var/run/nologin (Thanks, systemd...). Keen for a fix, seems one should be available now. Is anyone else actually seeing systemd-208-11 showing up? I only see systemd-208-9, which is broken. Does it fix the issue? (Oh and why am i not surprised, at all, that this is due to systemd? I will be happy when I install Fedora one day and realise systemd has been replaced by sysvinit or upstart or something else that is better and has some element of backwards compabaility) Cheers Dan

2 1

nfs-utils-1.2.9-2.1
by Peter G. 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

I just ran yum update and, when the updater tries to install the new/uninstall the old nfs-utils, I see this message: error: %pre(nfs-utils-1:1.2.9-2.1.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 Error in PREIN scriptlet in rpm package 1:nfs-utils-1.2.9-2.1.fc20.x86_64 1:nfs-utils-1.2.8-6.0.fc20.x86_64 was supposed to be removed but is not! Verifying : 1:nfs-utils-1.2.8-6.0.fc20.x86_64 1/2 Verifying : 1:nfs-utils-1.2.9-2.1.fc20.x86_64 2/2 When I run rpm -q nfs-utils, I see: nfs-utils-1.2.8-6.0.fc20.x86_64 And when I run yum update again, it tries to download and install the new nfs-utils again. What to do? Wait for a corrected nfs-utils to appear? Run rpm with the -- noscript option, somehow, although I don't know exactly how)?

5 15

F20: yum gives strange messages
by antonio montagnani 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

updating my F20 I get this kind of messages!!! with the failure to update Downloading packages: nfs-utils-1.2.9-2.1.fc20.i686.rpm | 356 kB 00:01 Running transaction check Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded Running transaction error: %pre(nfs-utils-1:1.2.9-2.1.fc20.i686) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 Error in PREIN scriptlet in rpm package 1:nfs-utils-1.2.9-2.1.fc20.i686 Verifica in corso : 1:nfs-utils-1.2.9-2.1.fc20.i686 1/2 1:nfs-utils-1.2.8-6.0.fc20.i686 was supposed to be removed but is not! Verifica in corso : 1:nfs-utils-1.2.8-6.0.fc20.i686 2/2 Fallito: nfs-utils.i686 1:1.2.8-6.0.fc20 nfs-utils.i686 1:1.2.9-2.1.fc20 Completo! -- Antonio M Skype: amontag52 Linux Fedora F20 (Heisenbug) on Acer 5720 http://lugsaronno.altervista.org http://www.campingmonterosa.com

4 5

yum problem - protected multilib
by Martin Møller Skarbiniks Pedersen 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

Hi, After running yum update I got the message below. I think I am some more hints how to solve this: Thanks. --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Multilib version problems found. This often means that the root cause is something else and multilib version checking is just pointing out that there is a problem. Eg.: 1. You have an upgrade for wine-openal which is missing some dependency that another package requires. Yum is trying to solve this by installing an older version of wine-openal of the different architecture. If you exclude the bad architecture yum will tell you what the root cause is (which package requires what). You can try redoing the upgrade with --exclude wine-openal.otherarch ... this should give you an error message showing the root cause of the problem. 2. You have multiple architectures of wine-openal installed, but yum can only see an upgrade for one of those architectures. If you don't want/need both architectures anymore then you can remove the one with the missing update and everything will work. 3. You have duplicate versions of wine-openal installed already. You can use "yum check" to get yum show these errors. ...you can also use --setopt=protected_multilib=false to remove this checking, however this is almost never the correct thing to do as something else is very likely to go wrong (often causing much more problems). Protected multilib versions: wine-openal-1.7.8-1.fc19.i686 != wine-openal-1.7.5-1.fc19.x86_64 Error: Protected multilib versions: wine-capi-1.7.8-1.fc19.i686 != wine-capi-1.7.5-1.fc19.x86_64 Error: Protected multilib versions: 1:openssl-libs-1.0.1e-37.fc19.i686 != 1:openssl-libs-1.0.1e-36.fc19.x86_64 Error: Protected multilib versions: wine-cms-1.7.8-1.fc19.i686 != wine-cms-1.7.5-1.fc19.x86_64 Error: Protected multilib versions: libjpeg-turbo-1.2.90-3.fc19.i686 != libjpeg-turbo-1.2.90-2.fc19.x86_64 Error: Protected multilib versions: wine-twain-1.7.8-1.fc19.i686 != wine-twain-1.7.5-1.fc19.x86_64 Error: Protected multilib versions: wine-pulseaudio-1.7.8-1.fc19.i686 != wine-pulseaudio-1.7.5-1.fc19.x86_64 Error: Protected multilib versions: wine-core-1.7.8-1.fc19.i686 != wine-core-1.7.5-1.fc19.x86_64 Error: Protected multilib versions: wine-ldap-1.7.8-1.fc19.i686 != wine-ldap-1.7.5-1.fc19.x86_64

3 2

SiS chipset problems
by Richard Shaw 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

I got a hold of an old Sony All-in-one I'm trying to refurbish for someone who could still put an old P4 to use. I've upgraded the memory to 1GB and the HD from 120GB to 250GB so I think I've got enough horsepower and storage but the one problem I haven't been able to fix is it seems X REALLY doesn't like the SiS video chipset, which being an all-in-one, is not upgradable. I tried Fedora 19, 20, Ubuntu 13.10, Mint 16 and all had too many problems with X to even install. The only thing I have had success with is CentOS 6.5 but even though it installed and seems to run fine, I still get corrupted video when the screen saver starts. It clears up when you shake the mouse, etc, but I still don't trust it enough to give to someone. I don't want to be Tech support frequently after it finds a new home. Any ideas? Or should I just scrap it? Thanks, Richard

2 1

Audio problems
by Robert Moskowitz 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

Lenovo x120e Builtin speakers work for a couple minutes after a boot, then typically stop working. Sometimes may work for a bit longer, but always stop. Headphones (you have to use a combo headphone/mic, like the one from your smartphone) works no problem. The schematic from the manual shows the wires going into the jack component and from there to the speaker component. The bios speaker mute button <Fn-esc> can tell the difference if a headset is plugged in or not (mute headset/speaker); perhaps this is an impedence test. Can this in anyway be a software issue? I suppose I could tear into the unit. I have a busted older unit; I cooked the processor board with a coke (tm) spill. I doubt it got the sound subsystem.

5 5

Odd BTRFS COW behaviour
by James Hogarth 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

Hi all, I've encountered something that seems a little weird and wondering if anyone has any ideas... My home server has an ext4 root with a btrfs pool mounted at /data (with a number of subvolumes in there). Within /data I am able to do cp --reflink=always <source> <dest> between subvolumes and COW works as expected. On my laptop (built with default BTRFS option in F19 and updated to F20) if I try and do a cp --reflink=always <source-in-root> <dest-in-home> (or vice versa direction) it complains that: cp: failed to clone ‘/tmptest/filename.tar.gz’ from ‘filename.tar.gz’: Invalid cross-device link There is one key difference I can think of ... although there are separate subvolumes in /data (home, music, downloads, etc) only /data is directly mounted and I'm not explictly mounting the subvolid=music on /data/music or anything like that ... With the laptop (from the default BTRFS install choice) / and /home are explicitly mounted separately even though they are in the same BTRFS pool. So far as I understand it when in the same pool cross-subvolume COW should be valid (as shown in /data on the server) - even if technically under separate mounts. Can anyone else verify the behaviour and is anyone sure of what the correct behaviour should be - if there is a bug is it to file with cp or with btrfs-progs/kernel for example .... Cheers, James

1 0

Re: rpm scriptlet issues
by s.oreilly 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

That's brilliant. All fixed, thanks very much for your help Regards Sean O'Reilly On Fri 17/01/14 11:03 AM , "Frank Murphy" frankly3d(a)gmail.com sent: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:01:11 +0000 > "s.oreilly" < > s.oreilly(a)linnovations.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is anyone else seeing issues with scriptlet > failures when installing> packages? > > > > happening with every package I > install!> > > Asked and Answered: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/th > read.html > > > ___ > Regards, > Frank > www.frankly3d.com > > >

1 0

rpm scriptlet issues
by s.oreilly 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

Hi, Is anyone else seeing issues with scriptlet failures when installing packages? happening with every package I install! Running transaction Installing : libvirt-daemon-config-network-1.1.3.2-1.fc20.x86_64 1/3 warning: %post(libvirt-daemon-config-network-1.1.3.2-1.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 Non-fatal POSTIN scriptlet failure in rpm package libvirt-daemon-config-network-1.1.3.2-1.fc20.x86_64 Installing : virt-install-0.10.0-5.git1ffcc0cc.fc20.noarch 2/3 Installing : virt-viewer-0.5.7-2.fc20.x86_64 3/3 warning: %post(virt-viewer-0.5.7-2.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 Non-fatal POSTIN scriptlet failure in rpm package virt-viewer-0.5.7-2.fc20.x86_64 warning: %posttrans(virt-viewer-0.5.7-2.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 Non-fatal POSTTRANS scriptlet failure in rpm package virt-viewer-0.5.7-2.fc20.x86_64 This is an example but is happening with everything I try to install. Fresh install of Fedora 20 on an HP EliteBook 8440p. Thanks Sean O'Reilly

2 1

← Newer
1
...
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
...
34
Older →

Jump to page: