-----Original Message----- From: Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net Reply-to: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: failure of f24 to f25 upgrade Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 21:54:13 +0100
On Thursday, 01 December 2016 at 21:40, Howard Howell wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Josh Stone jistone@redhat.com To: hlhowell@pacbell.net, Development discussions related to Fedora <de vel@lists.fedoraproject.org>, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject .o rg> Subject: Re: failure of f24 to f25 upgrade Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:37:04 -0800
On 12/01/2016 12:26 PM, Howard Howell wrote:
Now it gets really weird... # rpm -q --provides google-earth package google-earth is not installed
Should be google-earth-stable, no?
Different results: rpm -q --provides google-earth-stable google-earth = 7.1.7.2606 google-earth-stable = 7.1.7.2606-0 google-earth-stable(x86-64) = 7.1.7.2606-0
But not the one with the issue???
Yes, because dnf complains about issues with the updated google-earth-stable package, not the current one.
Try `rpm -e google-earth-stable'.
Regards, Dominik
PS. Your quoting is bad (no indentation, so it misattributes quotes) and this is really not a topic for the developers list.
# rpm -e google-earth-stable [root@school log]#
Well, I tried the users list, no reply. I did google, bugzilla, and checked as many search terms as I could. Upgrades via dnf are relatively new, and since it was not on bugzilla, I thought before I submitted one I should have sufficient supporting information on what exactly is the bug. A non conforming package is going to happen on the cutting edge, so this is something that bears investigation by the developers, I would think.
Also if investigation proves that I caused it then providing people with information to avoid the issue would be good, wouldn't it? However installing a non supported package should not prevent an upgrade, should it?
Regards, Les H