<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I have a fairly standard FC20 setup which I started upgrading by <br>
<br>
fedup --network 21 --product=workstation<br>
<br>
There were 109 packages for which there was no upgrade; 62 are
*-debuginfo, 12 are from various oddball repos (adobe, simulavr,
etc), but 36 are I believe regular Fedora Core 20 packages,
including fairly important ones like 8 related to the R language.<br>
<br>
Two of those result in packaging conflicts and fedup warns about
'upgrade at your own risk':<br>
<br>
icedtea-web-1.5.2-0.fc20.x86_64 requires
java-1.7.0-openjdk-1:1.7.0.71-2.5.3.0.fc20.x86_64<br>
<br>
R-core-3.1.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires tk-1:8.5.14-1.fc20.x86_64,
tcl-1:8.5.14-1.fc20.x86_64, libicu-50.1.2-10.fc20.x86_64<br>
<br>
I imagine there will be fc21 packages for those eventually, so
should I file a bugzilla report on it, or go ahead with the install
and wait for the new versions? If reporting, would it be against
fedup or specific packages?<br>
<br>
<br>
yum list icedtea-web R-core java-1.7.0-openjdk tk tcl libicu<br>
<br>
returns:<br>
<br>
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, refresh-packagekit<br>
Installed Packages<br>
R-core.x86_64
3.1.2-1.fc20 @updates <br>
icedtea-web.x86_64 1.5.2-0.fc20
@updates <br>
java-1.7.0-openjdk.x86_64 1:1.7.0.71-2.5.3.0.fc20 @updates <br>
libicu.i686
50.1.2-10.fc20 installed<br>
libicu.x86_64
50.1.2-10.fc20 installed<br>
tcl.x86_64
1:8.5.14-1.fc20 installed<br>
tk.x86_64
1:8.5.14-1.fc20 installed<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>