So, I have been trying to upgrade this fully updated f31 machine on the CLI. I have tried the following:
$ sudo dnf --refresh upgrade Adobe Systems Incorporated 17 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.6 kB/s | 986 B 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 93 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 - Updates 77 kB/s | 13 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 71 kB/s | 12 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 801 kB/s | 2.8 MB 00:03 Fedora 31 - x86_64 96 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 google-chrome 18 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free - Updates 14 kB/s | 3.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - Updates 25 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 Dependencies resolved. Nothing to do. Complete!
$ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32 Before you continue ensure that your system is fully upgraded by running "dnf --refresh upgrade". Do you want to continue [y/N]: y Adobe Systems Incorporated 17 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.7 kB/s | 986 B 00:00 Fedora Modular 32 - x86_64 87 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 32 - x86_64 - Updates 71 kB/s | 13 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 - x86_64 - Updates 65 kB/s | 11 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 - x86_64 - Updates 402 kB/s | 460 kB 00:01 Fedora 32 - x86_64 88 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 google-chrome 24 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Free - Updates 24 kB/s | 3.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Free 22 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Nonfree - Updates 25 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Nonfree 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
$ sudo dnf distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM CDT. Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
I can not figure out what to do. Any suggestions?
Ranjan
On 9/2/20 9:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
$ sudo dnf distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM CDT. Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
Something seems to be really broken.
Is that the entire output from dnf?
What happens if you try adding "--skip-broken"?
Have you installed any packages from outside Fedora's repos?
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote:
On 9/2/20 9:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
$ sudo dnf distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM CDT. Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
Something seems to be really broken.
Is that the entire output from dnf?
Yes.
What happens if you try adding "--skip-broken"?
Same result.
Have you installed any packages from outside Fedora's repos?
I don't know the answer: a student who knows quite a bit about Fedora used to use it. But it has never been a problem to upgrade this machine previously.
Is there an obvious way to remove/figure out packages that are causing the problems?
Many thanks, Ranjan
2020-09-02 20:10 UTC+02:00, Ranjan Maitra maitra@email.com:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote:
Have you installed any packages from outside Fedora's repos?
I don't know the answer: a student who knows quite a bit about Fedora used to use it. But it has never been a problem to upgrade this machine previously.
Is there an obvious way to remove/figure out packages that are causing the problems?
You seem to have a lot of non-Fedora repos enabled. For example
Adobe Systems Incorporated Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 google-chrome etc.
I'd remove the packages which comes from these repos and disable the repos themselves.
Andras
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 22:38:14 +0200 Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com wrote:
2020-09-02 20:10 UTC+02:00, Ranjan Maitra maitra@email.com:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote:
Have you installed any packages from outside Fedora's repos?
I don't know the answer: a student who knows quite a bit about Fedora used to use it. But it has never been a problem to upgrade this machine previously.
Is there an obvious way to remove/figure out packages that are causing the problems?
You seem to have a lot of non-Fedora repos enabled. For example
Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 google-chrome etc.
Thanks, I wonder: how do I remove these packages? I can disable the repos, no issues, but how do I figure out what these apps are.
I think that the Adobe Systems Incorporated is for the flash-plugin, and googe-chrome is for chrome (which I have removed) and is disabled. I suspect that the openh264 is to get WebEx to work, but I am happy to remove it. How do I find out what are the non-repo, non-RPMfusion apps?
Many thanks, Ranjan
On 2 Sep 2020 at 13:10, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
Date sent: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:10:28 -0500 From: Ranjan Maitra maitra@email.com To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: system-upgrade f31 to f32 on CLI fails Organization: Mailbox Ignored Send reply to: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote:
On 9/2/20 9:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
$ sudo dnf distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM CDT. Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
Something seems to be really broken.
Is that the entire output from dnf?
Yes.
What happens if you try adding "--skip-broken"?
Same result.
Have you installed any packages from outside Fedora's repos?
I don't know the answer: a student who knows quite a bit about Fedora used to use it. But it has never been a problem to upgrade this machine previously.
Is there an obvious way to remove/figure out packages that are causing the problems?
Many thanks, Ranjan
might want to try adding --allowerasing to the dnf upgrade option. I just upgraded some systems, and it seemed that fc31 had some newer versions of packages than the fc32, and they had to be downgraded for the update to go thru. You could run with the option, and see what it shows will be downgraded or removed. If it seems to still have issues, you can cancell the option.
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
+------------------------------------------------------------+ Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired) mailto:mikes@guam.net mailto:msetzerii@gmail.com Guam - Where America's Day Begins G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ +------------------------------------------------------------+
On 9/2/20 1:38 PM, Andras Simon wrote:
You seem to have a lot of non-Fedora repos enabled. For example
Adobe Systems Incorporated Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
This is actually a Fedora supplied repo config.
google-chrome etc.
I'd remove the packages which comes from these repos and disable the repos themselves.
I have all those repos as well and have never had a problem.
On 9/2/20 3:30 PM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
might want to try adding --allowerasing to the dnf upgrade option. I just upgraded some systems, and it seemed that fc31 had some newer versions of packages than the fc32, and they had to be downgraded for the update to go thru. You could run with the option, and see what it shows will be downgraded or removed. If it seems to still have issues, you can cancell the option.
It's definitely another option worth trying, however he had the same problem with distro-sync as well.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 13:57, Ranjan Maitra maitra@email.com wrote:
So, I have been trying to upgrade this fully updated f31 machine on the CLI. I have tried the following:
$ sudo dnf --refresh upgrade Adobe Systems Incorporated 17 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.6 kB/s | 986 B 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 93 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 - Updates 77 kB/s | 13 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 71 kB/s | 12 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 801 kB/s | 2.8 MB 00:03 Fedora 31 - x86_64 96 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 google-chrome 18 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free - Updates 14 kB/s | 3.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - Updates 25 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 Dependencies resolved. Nothing to do. Complete!
$ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32 Before you continue ensure that your system is fully upgraded by running "dnf --refresh upgrade". Do you want to continue [y/N]: y Adobe Systems Incorporated 17 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.7 kB/s | 986 B 00:00 Fedora Modular 32 - x86_64 87 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 32 - x86_64 - Updates 71 kB/s | 13 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 - x86_64 - Updates 65 kB/s | 11 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 - x86_64 - Updates 402 kB/s | 460 kB 00:01 Fedora 32 - x86_64 88 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 google-chrome 24 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Free - Updates 24 kB/s | 3.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Free 22 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Nonfree - Updates 25 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Nonfree 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
$ sudo dnf distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM CDT. Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
I can not figure out what to do. Any suggestions?
Upgrading a broken system often leads to an open-ended fight with broken apps. If you backup anything important and do a fresh install you know you will get a working system in finite time.
It is amazing how fast two systems that start out with identical hardware and software from a disk image can diverge, especially when used by students.
On 2020-09-03 02:10, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:51:26 -0700 Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote:
On 9/2/20 9:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
$ sudo dnf distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM CDT. Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
Something seems to be really broken.
Is that the entire output from dnf?
Yes.
What happens if you try adding "--skip-broken"?
Same result.
Have you installed any packages from outside Fedora's repos?
I don't know the answer: a student who knows quite a bit about Fedora used to use it. But it has never been a problem to upgrade this machine previously.
Is there an obvious way to remove/figure out packages that are causing the problems?
Another thing to try is to run
sudo rpm --rebuilddb
And try the upgrade again.
Ranjan,
I'm having the same packages as you (openh264, ... and a trunkload of MORE stuff from "outside fedora") and never have experienced any problem when upgrading.
That said, you didn't explicitly mention whether you did **install the "Fedora update utility"** Could it be you didn't do that: "sudo dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade"
FWIW, to be on the safe side (sorry if this of no help) here's the process: - create a backup - upgrade all installed packages of Fedora version 31 by running "sudo dnf upgrade --refresh" - reboot by typing "sudo reboot" if kernel update was installed - Install Fedora update utility by "sudo dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade" - start the upgrade procedure and download packages "sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32" - reboot and complete upgrade: "sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot" - verify upgrades
As said, you didn't mention whether you went thru this process, so just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. HTH, Thomas
On 9/2/20 11:41 PM, Thomas Klein wrote:
That said, you didn't explicitly mention whether you did **install the "Fedora update utility"**
Could it be you didn't do that: "sudo dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade"
FWIW, to be on the safe side (sorry if this of no help) here's the process:
- create a backup
- upgrade all installed packages of Fedora version 31 by running "sudo dnf upgrade --refresh"
- reboot by typing "sudo reboot" if kernel update was installed
- Install Fedora update utility by "sudo dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade"
- start the upgrade procedure and download packages "sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32"
- reboot and complete upgrade: "sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot"
- verify upgrades
As said, you didn't mention whether you went thru this process, so just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. HTH, Thomas
Did you read the original email? Your reply is completely irrelevant.
You might do a "rpm -qa | grep -v fc31 | sort" and post that output.
That will tell you all packages that don't have the fc31 label on it, a fair number of those packages won't have a problem, but it is likely that if the prior user installed non-fc and non-rpmfustion rpms that it could have made a mess of things.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:34 AM Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote:
On 9/2/20 11:41 PM, Thomas Klein wrote:
That said, you didn't explicitly mention whether you did **install the "Fedora update utility"**
Could it be you didn't do that: "sudo dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade"
FWIW, to be on the safe side (sorry if this of no help) here's the process:
- create a backup
- upgrade all installed packages of Fedora version 31 by running "sudo dnf upgrade --refresh"
- reboot by typing "sudo reboot" if kernel update was installed
- Install Fedora update utility by "sudo dnf install dnf-plugin-system-upgrade"
- start the upgrade procedure and download packages "sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32"
- reboot and complete upgrade: "sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot"
- verify upgrades
As said, you didn't mention whether you went thru this process, so just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. HTH, Thomas
Did you read the original email? Your reply is completely irrelevant. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:24 -0300 "George N. White III" gnwiii@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 13:57, Ranjan Maitra maitra@email.com wrote:
So, I have been trying to upgrade this fully updated f31 machine on the CLI. I have tried the following:
$ sudo dnf --refresh upgrade Adobe Systems Incorporated 17 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.6 kB/s | 986 B 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 93 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 - Updates 77 kB/s | 13 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 71 kB/s | 12 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 801 kB/s | 2.8 MB 00:03 Fedora 31 - x86_64 96 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 google-chrome 18 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free - Updates 14 kB/s | 3.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - Updates 25 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 Dependencies resolved. Nothing to do. Complete!
$ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32 Before you continue ensure that your system is fully upgraded by running "dnf --refresh upgrade". Do you want to continue [y/N]: y Adobe Systems Incorporated 17 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.7 kB/s | 986 B 00:00 Fedora Modular 32 - x86_64 87 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 Fedora Modular 32 - x86_64 - Updates 71 kB/s | 13 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 - x86_64 - Updates 65 kB/s | 11 kB 00:00 Fedora 32 - x86_64 - Updates 402 kB/s | 460 kB 00:01 Fedora 32 - x86_64 88 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 google-chrome 24 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Free - Updates 24 kB/s | 3.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Free 22 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Nonfree - Updates 25 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 32 - Nonfree 23 kB/s | 3.1 kB 00:00 Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
$ sudo dnf distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:06 ago on Wed 02 Sep 2020 11:22:53 AM CDT. Error: Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf, systemd, systemd-udev (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
I can not figure out what to do. Any suggestions?
Upgrading a broken system often leads to an open-ended fight with broken apps. If you backup anything important and do a fresh install you know you will get a working system in finite time.
It is amazing how fast two systems that start out with identical hardware and software from a disk image can diverge, especially when used by students.
I had a good chuckle at this one! But to be fair, this particular student was (is) older than the average and knows quite a lot. Nevertheless, I decided that it is perhaps best to go ahead and do a fresh install and have done that.
Thanks again to everybody for all your help!
Best wishes, Ranjan
Ranjan
-
Andras Simon -
Ed Greshko -
George N. White III -
Michael D. Setzer II -
Ranjan Maitra -
Roger Heflin -
Samuel Sieb -
Thomas Klein