Re: Yet More Yum Woe
Kam Leo <kam.leo <at> gmail.com>
2009-01-01 07:32:57 GMT
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Beartooth <Beartooth <at> swva.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:03:20 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:08:00 +0000 (UTC), Beartooth wrote:
>> What do you get if you run
>> rpm --query --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
>> repoquery --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
> The first tells me an rpm for gtk-sharp; the second just gives my
> root prompt back.
>> In case you don't have repoquery yet, you can find it in the "yum-utils"
> I tried "yum install yum-utils" -- it says I have it, and it's
> the latest.
>> There has been a gtk-shark2 update recently, and it certainly provides
>> these four things which are complained about.
>> "sysinfo" is not found in the Fedora package collection, however. I
>> wonder whether that might be of importance. If you "rpm -e sysinfo" it
>> and then try yum update again, any change?
>>> (1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report'])
>>> I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the
>>> error line.
>>> It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have
>>> been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to
>>> So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try.
>>> Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good,
>>> urge me strongly not to go there.
>> Still you could choose to go there (and add an exception for the
>> certificate). ;)
> I tried it, and the warnings got stronger; one (Galeon or
> Epiphany) assured me that no honest X,Y, or Z (which seemed to cover 99
> 44/100% of the waterfront among them) would ever ask me to do that.
> That's when I quit and asked here instead. *Can* someone vouch for
> yum.baseurl.org -- including that nobody could be spoofing it??
> I'd've done it if it'd been a site I know; but it isn't.
>>> Transaction Summary
>>> Install 0 Package(s)
>>> Update 0 Package(s)
>>> Remove 18 Package(s)
>>> Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with
>>> named sysinfo nor gnome-
desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some
>>> such thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time
>>> with that ...)
> Now, after Ron Siven's assurance here, I have removed "sysinfo"
> -- and everything seems fine. Some sort of orphan from an old install,
> maybe ....
>> If it prints a list of what packages it will remove, it won't silently
>> remove itself.
> Yes; many a time have I taken advantage of that.
>> What makes "yum remove ..." dangerous is that other dependency chains
>> are much longer and would lead to removing many more packages. Paying
>> close attention to the printed list and the y/n safety check is very
> Many many thanks!
> Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
> Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.
It will probably do you or anyone who upgrades a system to run
`package-cleanup --orphans' to find old packages no longer resident in
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list <at> redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list