On 08/07/16 08:11, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 07/07/2016 02:51 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 07/07/16 09:49, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 07/07/16 06:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>> Thanks Ed. I issued the command and got back Packager: None.
>>> I then tried the same command on a package that I know only exists in
>>> the Negativo17
>>> repositories and that gave the same response of Packager : None.
>> Another option...
>>
>> dnf info kmod-nvidia
> Thanks Ed, I tried that command and it did tell me that it was indeed
> installed and which repository it came from. I then tried a dnf info
> kmod-nvidia* which showed me all the associated packages from the
> Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories. It also told me that the
> kmod-nvidia-$(uname -r) packages were installed and came from repository
> @commandline, which I assume means they were compiled, which surprised
> me because I thought the purpose of the kmod-nvidia metadata package was
> to pull in and install the pre-compiled nvidia binary packages matching
> the kernel, is that not correct?
"@@commandline" means that the RPM was installed from an RPM residing on
the local disk and not from the web. Any time you install an RPM from
a local disk file (regardless of where you downloaded it from), it will
appear to come from the "@@comandline" repo since dnf didn't go out and
fetch the RPM itself.
Thanks Rick, I had installed those packages manually at one
point
because the upgrade broke Xorg both for the nvidia packages an nouveau,
but I thought I had uninstalled the manually installed versions before I
eventually got to the install method that enabled the nvidia packages to
work.
> I also thought the akmod-nvidia package was in both the Negativo17 and
> Rpmfusion repositories, but when I issue 'dnf info akmod-nvidia' it only
> shows me information relative the installed version that came from the
> Negativo17 repository. Shouldn't it have told me that there was an
> installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository and an
> uninstalled version in the Rpmfusion repository?
I would think under "Installed Packages" it would list the installed
one from "@@commandline" and under "Available Packages" the ones
available from Negativo17 and rpmfusion.
I'm not running akmod-nvidia on my F23 box, but searching for any
"akmod*" stuff:
[root@prophead ~]# dnf list akmod*
Last metadata expiration check: 0:06:56 ago on Thu Jul 7 14:51:02 2016.
Installed Packages
akmod-VirtualBox.x86_64 5.0.16-2.fc23 @@commandline
akmods.noarch 0.5.4-2.fc23 @@commandline
Available Packages
akmod-ndiswrapper.x86_64 1.60-1.fc23 rpmfusion-free
akmod-nvidia.x86_64 1:358.16-1.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree
akmod-nvidia-304xx.x86_64 304.131-2.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree
akmod-nvidia-340xx.x86_64 1:340.96-1.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree
akmod-wl.x86_64 6.30.223.271-4.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree
akmod-xtables-addons.x86_64 2.10-1.fc23 rpmfusion-free
Yes, the akmod-VirtualBox and akmods.noarch were installed from RPMs I
had downloaded previously.
From the command you have listed and what the same
command shows on my
system, is that the akmod-nvidia packages in the two repositories are
named differently, I thought they were the same name.
regards,
Steve
> Just relative to the 2nd message in my original thread, isn't that
> message for the standard F24 kernel, saying that it has an unsatisfiable
> dependency on the associated kernel-core package? My issue with that is
> if that is the case, how and why did a 'sudo dnf upgrade' issued the day
> after the upgrade install that kernel, because I believe the missing
> dependency should have stopped it from being installed, or am I missing
> something?
>
> regards,
> Steve
>
> --
> users mailing list
> users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> Guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> Have a question? Ask away:
http://ask.fedoraproject.org