4:34 a.m.
Hello,
A user posted some issue on gnutls [0], and it turned out that after a
fresh install of f24 that user had two versions of the library
installed. I have no idea why this can be or whether that should be
expected from the installer/updater. Any insights?
regards,
Nikos
[0]. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378781
5:15 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
<nmav(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hello,
A user posted some issue on gnutls [0], and it turned out that after a
fresh install of f24 that user had two versions of the library
installed. I have no idea why this can be or whether that should be
expected from the installer/updater. Any insights?
Could be lots of reasons. An x86_64 and i686 library installed
simultaneously can appear confusingly as duplicate libraries if you
don't ask rpm to report architecture. A system interruption during the
update can block rpm from clearing the old entries in its database. Or
a failure of '%post' operations can cause the update to fail partway
through.
The usual answer if there are genuinely two copies reported is to do a
"reinstall" if it's two distinct versions of the same package, and to
do an "rpm --rebuilddb" and see if that helps.
>
> regards,
> Nikos
>
> [0]. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378781
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
6:21 a.m.
Hello,
This is maybe a silly question but... if you're architecture is, let's
say x86_64, why would anything install an i686 version of the same
package?
Cheers,
Sylvia
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 06:15 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
Could be lots of reasons. An x86_64 and i686 library installed
simultaneously can appear confusingly as duplicate libraries if you
> don't ask rpm to report architecture. A system interruption during
the
> update can block rpm from clearing the old entries in its
database.
Or
a failure of '%post' operations can cause the update to fail
partway
through.
> The usual answer if there are genuinely two copies reported is to do
a
"reinstall" if it's two distinct versions of the same
package, and to
do an "rpm --rebuilddb" and see if that helps.
>
> regards,
> Nikos
6:46 a.m.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Sylvia <bhkohane(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is maybe a silly question but... if you're architecture is,
let's say
x86_64, why would anything install an i686 version of the same package?
If you install a 32-bit program, it may pull in other i686
dependencies. See what happens if you try to install skype's rpm.
There is also the case of compiling stuff for i686.
10:55 a.m.
Oh, I see, thanks. I remember a couple of years ago that Fedora
installed 32-bits stuff by itself and I ended with a messed system, but
I guess that was a bug.
Thank you!
Sylvia
On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 14:46 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Sylvia
<bhkohane(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is maybe a silly question but... if you're architecture is,
let's say
> > > x86_64, why would anything install an i686 version of
the same
package?
If you install a 32-bit program, it may pull in other i686
dependencies. See what happens if you try to install skype's rpm.
There is also the case of compiling stuff for i686.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
1:07 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
<nmav(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Could be lots of reasons. An x86_64 and i686 library installed
simultaneously can appear confusingly as duplicate libraries if you
don't ask rpm to report architecture. A system interruption during the
update can block rpm from clearing the old entries in its database. Or
a failure of '%post' operations can cause the update to fail partway
through.
The usual answer if there are genuinely two copies reported is to do a
"reinstall" if it's two distinct versions of the same package, and to
do an "rpm --rebuilddb" and see if that helps.
Reinstall or any other dnf operation except remove doesn't work, didn't try
--rebuilddb. There are many cases of such broken state on forums, but system is usually
working fine AFAICT. Is there a way to alter rpm database to remove one version of a
package without altering the system?
> >
> > regards,
> > Nikos
> >
> > [0]. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378781
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
1:23 p.m.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:07:56 -0000
Samuel Rakitničan <srakitnican(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Reinstall or any other dnf operation except remove doesn't work,
didn't try --rebuilddb. There are many cases of such broken state on
forums, but system is usually working fine AFAICT. Is there a way to
alter rpm database to remove one version of a package without
altering the system?
If you look at man yum2dnf, it tells you the equivalent commands under
dnf for yum commands. What you are trying to do is clean dupes. These
are the appropriate commands for dnf, from that man page.
package-cleanup --dupes
is now
dnf repoquery --duplicated
and
package-cleanup --cleandupes
is now
dnf remove $(dnf repoquery --installonly --latest-limit -3 -q)
I recall using this dnf command successfully, but it has been a long
time. Another way of saying, be careful.
7:11 a.m.
There is another option: ``dnf remove --duplicated``
Jaroslav
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:44 PM, stan <stanl-fedorauser(a)vfemail.net> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:23:53 -0700
stan <stanl-fedorauser(a)vfemail.net> wrote:
> dnf remove $(dnf repoquery --installonly --latest-limit -3 -q)
This is wrong! I copied the wrong line. The actual command should be
dnf remove $(dnf repoquery --duplicated --latest-limit -1 -q)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
7:22 a.m.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jaroslav Mracek <jmracek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
There is another option: ``dnf remove --duplicated``
Basically
it's an alias to command mentioned before, but anyhow it
doesn't exist in F25.
Jaroslav
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:44 PM, stan <stanl-fedorauser(a)vfemail.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:23:53 -0700
> stan <stanl-fedorauser(a)vfemail.net> wrote:
>
>
> > dnf remove $(dnf repoquery --installonly --latest-limit -3 -q)
>
> This is wrong! I copied the wrong line. The actual command should be
>
> dnf remove $(dnf repoquery --duplicated --latest-limit -1 -q)
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
-Igor Gnatenko
2754
days inactive
2770
days old
9 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Alexander Ploumistos -
Igor Gnatenko -
Jaroslav Mracek -
Lailah -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos -
Samuel Rakitničan -
stan