[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: yum update in rawhide after a long break [was Re: rawhide report: 20080114 changes]

Todd Denniston wrote:
Jim Cornette wrote, On 01/23/2008 09:08 PM:
Todd Denniston wrote:
Jim Cornette wrote, On 01/14/2008 06:07 PM:
Todd Denniston wrote:

2) to get an F8 machine[1] on to rawhide do I just need to disable the yum entries for fedora & updates, and then enable development, then do a yum update?n

You may need to do this upgrade incremental. Also make sure that you are running yum from a virtual terminal instead of through a terminal in the GUI. Chances are that X will crash and yum will have left a mess in the aftermath. I prefer to upgrade the glibc items first and then everything incrementally except do not update the kernel until the later portion of the update.

I have a propensity to `yum update yum* rpm* cpio gpg` before I update much else on the system...
That bit me this time.

I do not update yum initially because of past failures. I guess it is still a good idea to wait until the bulk of packages is upgraded.


apparently the yum-3.2.8-2.fc9 rpm set got something wrong.

If it depends upon a certain version of python it should have pulled it in or refused to pull in yum,

Actually, it does not seem to be a python problem so much as a problem in yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-5.fc9.i386.rpm with _sqlitecache.so ... see my next paragraph from (my first email in this thread today) and http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=178870

so it looks like I am going to be doing an `rpm -Fvh *` in my Rawhide mirror, updating openssl just pulls in too many dependencies.... and after that failed ... a little googleing ended up at:
by pulling the _sqlitecache.so (and just that file) from a yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-1.fc8.i386.rpm, at least lets yum try to update 731 packages. [It looks like it may have worked, but <deity> only knows how much on the raw side of rawhide the machine is now.]

It should pull in the newer packages correctly I would expect.

the yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-5.fc9.i386.rpm must then be the package with the problem.???

This is in bugzilla.

Andrew Farris <lordmorgul gmail com> <ajfarris gmail com>
 gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]