4:31 p.m.
Hi,
I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended
on site https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if
there are any old packages that should be removed because they would not
be working properly anyway, and received the following messages which to
me make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora
23 kernels that is still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the
kernel listed in the 2nd message is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf
upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24. Hence the bottom line
is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is dnf
reporting that it can't find them?
package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64
requires kernel-uname-r = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the
providers can be installed
package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r =
4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
regards,
Steve
4:55 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
On 07/06/16 05:31, Stephen Morris wrote:
I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended
on site
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there are any old packages
that should be removed because they would not be working properly anyway, and received
the following messages which to
me make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora 23 kernels that
is still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the kernel listed in the 2nd message
is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24.
Hence the bottom line is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is
dnf reporting that it can't find them?
package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-uname-r
= 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r =
4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
Since these are rpmfusion supplied packages you'd best be asking on their list. But,
obviously, they can be ignored. :-) :-)
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
5:43 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
On 06/07/16 07:55, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 07/06/16 05:31, Stephen Morris wrote:
> I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended on site
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there are any old
packages
> that should be removed because they would not be working properly anyway, and
received
> the following messages which to
> me make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
> The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last
of the Fedora 23 kernels that
> is still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the kernel listed in the 2nd
message
> is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to
F24.
> Hence the bottom line is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why
is
> dnf reporting that it can't find them?
> package
kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-uname-r
> = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
> package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r =
> 4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
Since these are rpmfusion supplied packages you'd best be asking on their list.
But,
obviously, they can be ignored. :-) :-)
Thanks Ed. They aren't rpmfusion
packages I don't think. I think they
are coming from Negativo17, but I will ask on the appropriate list.
Just as a matter of interest, now that they are installed is there any
way I can tell which repository they actually came from?
regards,
Steve
6:02 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
On 07/06/16 06:43, Stephen Morris wrote:
Thanks Ed. They aren't rpmfusion packages I don't think. I
think they
are coming from Negativo17, but I will ask on the appropriate list.
Just as a matter of interest, now that they are installed is there any
way I can tell which repository they actually came from?
Well, something like
dnf repoquery -i kmod-nvidia-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64-367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 *may* do it. I
say "may" since if you are using akmod they get built locally an you'll see
Packager : None
In that case you'd probably get an related answer by querying akmod-nvidia.
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
5:10 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
On 06/07/16 09:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 07/06/16 06:43, Stephen Morris wrote:
> Thanks Ed. They aren't rpmfusion packages I don't think. I think they
> are coming from Negativo17, but I will ask on the appropriate list.
> Just as a matter of interest, now that they are installed is there any
> way I can tell which repository they actually came from?
Well, something like
dnf repoquery -i kmod-nvidia-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64-367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 *may* do it. I
say "may" since if you are using akmod they get built locally an you'll
see
Packager : None
In that case you'd probably get an related answer by querying akmod-nvidia.
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.
regards,
Steve
6:49 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
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
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
4:51 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
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-$(uname -r) packages were installed and came from repository
@commandline, which I assume means they were compiled, which surprised
me because I thought the purpose of the kmod-nvidia metadata package was
to pull in and install the pre-compiled nvidia binary packages matching
the kernel, is that not correct?
I also thought the akmod-nvidia package was in both the Negativo17 and
Rpmfusion repositories, but when I issue 'dnf info akmod-nvidia' it only
shows me information relative the installed version that came from the
Negativo17 repository. Shouldn't it have told me that there was an
installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository and an
uninstalled version in the Rpmfusion repository?
Just relative to the 2nd message in my original thread, isn't that
message for the standard F24 kernel, saying that it has an unsatisfiable
dependency on the associated kernel-core package? My issue with that is
if that is the case, how and why did a 'sudo dnf upgrade' issued the day
after the upgrade install that kernel, because I believe the missing
dependency should have stopped it from being installed, or am I missing
something?
regards,
Steve
5:11 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
On 07/07/2016 02:51 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 07/07/16 09:49, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
> On 07/07/16 06:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
>> Thanks Ed. I issued the command and got back Packager: None.
>> I then tried the same command on a package that I know only exists in
>> the Negativo17
>> repositories and that gave the same response of Packager : None.
> Another option...
>
> dnf info kmod-nvidia
Thanks Ed, I tried that command and it did tell me that it was indeed
installed and which repository it came from. I then tried a dnf info
kmod-nvidia* which showed me all the associated packages from the
Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories. It also told me that the
kmod-nvidia-$(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.
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.
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
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- "As for me, I aspire to be the Walmart Greeter in Hell." -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5:34 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
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
9:36 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
On 05/07/16 15:31, Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi,
I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended on
site https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there
are any old packages that should be removed because they would not be
working properly anyway, and received the following messages which to me
make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora
23 kernels that is still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the
kernel listed in the 2nd message is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf
upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24. Hence the bottom line
is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is dnf
reporting that it can't find them?
package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64
requires kernel-uname-r = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the
providers can be installed
package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r =
4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
regards,
Steve
Did you get to boot into F24? You said it was "after" the upgrade?
I have upgraded in the past and got stuck with old kernels before. A
bit of a mess to clean up but it worked.
Robin
4:32 p.m.
New subject: Strange messages from sudo dnf repoquery --unsatisfied after
upgrade from F23 to F24.
On 07/07/16 12:36, Robin Laing wrote:
On 05/07/16 15:31, Stephen Morris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended on
> site https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there
> are any old packages that should be removed because they would not be
> working properly anyway, and received the following messages which to me
> make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
>
> The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora
> 23 kernels that is still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the
> kernel listed in the 2nd message is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf
> upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24. Hence the bottom line
> is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is dnf
> reporting that it can't find them?
>
> package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64
> requires kernel-uname-r = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the
> providers can be installed
> package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r =
> 4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
>
>
> regards,
>
> Steve
>
Did you get to boot into F24? You said it was "after" the upgrade?
I have upgraded in the past and got stuck with old kernels before. A
bit of a mess to clean up but it worked.
I am using F24. Before the upgrade to F24
I had 3 kernels in F23 being
maintained by dnf, when I upgraded to F24 the oldest F23 kernel was
removed when the first F24 kernel was installed as per normal dnf
functionality.
My main problem with the messages was I didn't understand how there
could be an unsatisfiable dependency on a kernel that was already
installed, and in the case of the first message was installed before the
upgrade.
regards,
Steve
Robin
--
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
2857
days inactive
2859
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Ed Greshko -
Rick Stevens -
Robin Laing -
Stephen Morris