On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:07 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 11/14/23 18:47, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: > > How do I fix this?
You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the no-longer needed dependencies.
dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.
On 11/14/23 17:19, Roger Heflin wrote:
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 15 Apr 24 2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.9.4.0 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 551368 Apr 24 2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
so cd /usr/lib64 ln -s librpm.so.9.4.0 librpm.so.9
Assuming the librpm.so.9.4.0 is still there. But if that link is missing there is a decent chance that other links and/or files are also gone.
# ls -al librpm.so* lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 16 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10 -> librpm.so.10.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 563032 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10.0.0
Hmmmmmmm ...
Okay,
I got dnf to work again with the following:
/usr/lib64# ln -s librpmio.so.10.0.0 librpmio.so.9 /usr/lib64# ln -s librpm.so.10.0.0 librpm.so.9
Now how do I fix it right?
Just posted: dnf looking for outdated librpmio and librpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249732
On 11/15/23 08:02, Roger Heflin wrote:
It would have to be some sort of package problem. Unless something specifically deleted that so.9 link (which seems unlikely).
Clearly dnf thinks it needs so.9 but you only have so.10
I just upgraded my fc38 machine and have so.9 and this rpm version.
What fedora version do you have and what rpm do you have?
rpm -qa --filesbypkg | grep -i librpm.so rpm-libs /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 rpm-libs /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0 rpm -qa | grep -i rpm-libs rpm-libs-4.18.1-3.fc38.x86_64
I had the same as you until today when I did a `dnf upgrade`. Then all hell broke loose and librpmio and librpm got upgraded to 10.