users February 2019

users@lists.fedoraproject.org

101 participants
91 discussions

Re: update failed
by Frank McCormick 25 Feb '19

25 Feb '19

On 2019-02-25 10:01 a.m., Jakub Jelen wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 09:33 -0500, Frank McCormick wrote: >> Tried to update my Fedora 29 this morning. It failed >> >> with this error: >> >> >> [SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.119-1.x86_64.rpm: Already >> downloaded >> Package ffmpeg-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed >> Package ffmpeg-libs-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed >> Package libavdevice-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed >> The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next >> successful >> transaction. >> You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. >> Error: GPG check FAILED >> >> >> Is there a work around or should I just wait ? > $ dnf info google-chrome-stable > Error: No matching Packages to list > > There is no chrome package in Fedora. If you have issues with updates > from third party repositories, it is probably better to ask where you > got these repositories from. > > Note, that chromium works fine. > > Regards, My google-chrome comes from Google itself, but that wasn't the problem. I had added a 3rd party repository a long time ago (UnitedRPM)...I have long since forgotten the reason, but the ffmpeg package if was offering conflcited with the package(s) from rpm fusion. I dumped UnitedRPM and the problem is gone. Thanks Frank

2 1

Patching oddity
by Chris Kottaridis 25 Feb '19

25 Feb '19

The history of this machine is that Fedora 25 was initially installed and then I have been using the system upgrade to keep upgrading it to the newer release. I just upgraded it to Fedora29 two weeks ago. I use dnfdragora GUI tool to do the patching. When I selected ALL of the packages "to update" I got a transaction error complaining that dnf-utils and yum-utils were in conflict on some files. When I ran it from the command line the dnf-utils package was in a category to be installed with a note about "weak dependency". Not exactly sure what that means. I figured I would apply subsets of the packages available to update but avoid anything that looked like it had anything to do with dnf, such as other dnf-* packages and packages referring to repositories and such. I figured I'd come back to them later. I didn't want a dependency to pull in dnf-utils and get me back in the problem I had. So, I'd select a dozen or so packages in dnfdragora and apply them and then select another group. I apparently wasn't to good at selecting packages that didn't have dnf-* dependencies because every once in a while one of the dnf-* files was brought in due to dependencies. Since none ever included dnf-utils I went and ahead and selected apply. In the end all the packages ended up applying without errors and dnfdragora claimed everything is up to date and there is nothing to do. When I looked dnf-utils is not installed, yum-utils still is. So, I am confused why when I try to apply ALL the updates at once dnf claims dnf-utils needs to be installed, but if I apply them in small groups dnf says everything is up to date but dnf-utils isn't installed ? I am concerned that I will continue to run into this. Is dnf-utils supposed to replace yum-utils ? Is this a ramification of continually upgrading the OS instead of installing a new version and moving over my application ? This was always my concern about upgrading OS's. Experience taught me that an upgrade to a release doesn't leave you in the same place as a fresh install of the same release. But, I should say I love this OS upgrade system. It definitely made my life easier and has gone off with little hitches. Fedora versions cycle so quickly that I would have used a different OS for this project without it. Cudos to the team that implemented it! But if there are minor cleanups necessary, such as cleaning out older packages that are no longer needed and may conflict with newer packages, that would be good to know. Thanks Chris K

2 1

Gnome settings -> Online accounts and tor hidden services
by Robin Lee 25 Feb '19

25 Feb '19

Hi I wonder if there's away to configure a Nextcloud account in Online Accounts or otherwise that would connect to a Nextcloud server that resides on a tor hidden service, i.e. it would need to connect to an onion address. Cheers Robin

3 10

Re: update failed
by Frank McCormick 25 Feb '19

25 Feb '19

On 2019-02-25 9:59 a.m., Ed Greshko wrote: > On 2/25/19 10:33 PM, Frank McCormick wrote: >> Tried to update my Fedora 29 this morning. It failed >> >> with this error: >> >> >> [SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.119-1.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded >> Package ffmpeg-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed >> Package ffmpeg-libs-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed >> Package libavdevice-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed >> The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. >> You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. >> Error: GPG check FAILED >> >> >> Is there a work around or should I just wait ? >> > I don't believe ffmpeg and libavdevice packages are part of fedora. Mine come from rpmfusion. > > If you do a "dnf info ffmpeg" what do you see in "From repo" section? > Yup. They came from UnitedRPM, which was in conflict with the ones from rpmfusion. I don't recall why I added the UnitedRPM repository....but it's gone now. Thanks Frank

1 0

update failed
by Frank McCormick 25 Feb '19

25 Feb '19

Tried to update my Fedora 29 this morning. It failed with this error: [SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.119-1.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded Package ffmpeg-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed Package ffmpeg-libs-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed Package libavdevice-4.1.1-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm is not signed The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Error: GPG check FAILED Is there a work around or should I just wait ? Thanks

3 2

usb devices in gnome boxes with windows
by Alessandro 25 Feb '19

25 Feb '19

Hi everyone, I write this post to ask for information about a problem I encounter on gnome boxes. I tried to install both Windows 7 and Windows 10 ltsb, but neither of them for having installed Windows guest tools for Spice when I insert a USB key (usb2, usb3 etc.) and from the settings of boxes I apply the shared USB stick, this is detected in Windows, but not configured and therefore remains unusable. I wanted to know if someone has encountered the same problem and possibly help me to solve it or to virtualize windows is better to use Virtualbox? I thank you all

1 0

Re: Clean Fedora partitions
by Chandana De Silva 24 Feb '19

24 Feb '19

What do you mean by 'clean'. Do you eant to remove unused/unwanted files or remove a suspected virus ? I am not sure that there is concept of 'cleaning' a partition. You can use variations of the find command to locate and delete files and / or directories. for example: find /path/to/directory -type f -atime +100 -exec rm -f {} \; will locate and delete all files which were last accessed more than 100 days ago. Obiviously, this needs to be used with care so that you don't delete something importatnt. I am sure that others will give you more options. On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 19:24 +0100, Andreas Aßmann wrote: > Can anybody tell me how I can clean my Fedora partitions, especially > system partition?

2 2

Email Question - OT
by S. Bob 23 Feb '19

23 Feb '19

Hi All; This is probably Off Topic, apologies... I recently kicked googlemail to the curb in favor of a service that does not read my emails (fastmail). We are very happy with fastmail. We are using our own domain which I was also doing with google. All of our clients can now email me at the same email address as before and I get the emails via fastmail, however we have one client that I do not receive the emails for. They can email me at other addresses but not the 'migrated' address. I'm not sure how to even start debugging this... Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions would be much appreciated Thanks in advance

7 10

f29 : net-install error - anyone successful?
by Adrian Sevcenco 23 Feb '19

23 Feb '19

Hi! It would seem that there is a bug in f29 net-install .. The installer breaks with : dnf.exceptions.TransactionCheckError: sssd-common < 2.0.0-5.f29 conflicts with sssd-nfs-idmap-2.0.0-5.f29.x86_64 Does anyone have an idea about it? Thank you! Adrian

3 4

KDE Desktop Environment Doesn't Boot After Installer Puts Entry in Desktop Manager in F29
by Stephen Morris 23 Feb '19

23 Feb '19

Hi, In order to install the KDE Desktop I used DNF to install the KDE-desktop-environment group, which place a plasma entry in the desktop manager desktop list, but selecting this entry did not boot into KDE, it just continued to display the Desktop Manager. It wasn't until I manually installed, I think, the plasma-workspace-wayland that 'plasma for wayland' was added to the desktop list in the display that did enable KDE to be started. Given that it seems that F29 is standardizing on Wayland instead of Xorg, why doesn't the KDE-desktop-environment group also install this package to provide the needed Wayland support so KDE can be started under Wayland, rather than require the user to install it manually? regards, Steve

7 26

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →