Yet More Yum Woe

[Beartooth]

        "yum update" on one of my F10 machines looks all right, even 
through the download -- and then I get this :

(39/39): perl-5.10.0-52.fc10.i386.rpm                    |  14 MB 01:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                           140 kB/s |  44 MB 05:18
============================== Entering rpm code ========================
Running rpm_check_debug
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
mono(gdk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
mono(glade-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
mono(glib-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
mono(gtk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
Complete!
(1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report'])

        I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the 
error line.

	It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have 
been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to 2007).

        So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try.

        Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good, and 
urge me strongly not to go there.

        I try yum update again; same result. One of the forum threads 
that I do get to suggests the OP remove something. I try "yum remove 
mono*" -- and get this :

Dependencies Resolved

================================================================================
 Package                  Arch      Version Repository      Size
================================================================================
Removing:
 mono-addins              i386      0.3.1-2.2.fc10         installed 715 k
 mono-core                i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 25 M
 mono-data                i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 3.8 M
 mono-data-sqlite         i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 350 k
 mono-extras              i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 637 k
 mono-web                 i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 8.2 M
 mono-winforms            i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 7.6 M
Removing for dependencies:
 evolution-sharp          i386      0.18.1-1.fc10          installed 544 k
 f-spot                   i386      0.4.4-6.fc10           installed 7.9 M
 gmime-sharp              i386      2.2.21-1.fc10          installed 194 k
 gnome-desktop-sharp      i386      2.24.0-3.fc10          installed 780 k
 gnome-sharp              i386      2.24.0-1.fc10          installed 1.3 M
 gsf-sharp                i386      0.8.1-8.fc10           installed 140 k
 gtk-sharp2               i386      2.12.4-1.fc10          installed 2.6 M
 ndesk-dbus               i386      0.6.1a-2.fc9           installed 126 k
 ndesk-dbus-glib          i386      0.4.1-3.fc9            installed 11 k
 sysinfo                  i386      0.7-1                  installed 336 k
 taglib-sharp             i386      2.0.3.0-7.fc10         installed 433 k

Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Install      0 Package(s)
Update       0 Package(s)
Remove      18 Package(s)

        Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with things 
named sysinfo nor gnome-desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some such 
thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time with 
that ...)

        So am I stymied?? (Three other F10 machines so far have updated 
just fine btw.)

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

[Ron Siven]

Beartooth wrote:
>          "yum update" on one of my F10 machines looks all
> right, even 
>  through the download -- and then I get this :
>
>  (39/39): perl-5.10.0-52.fc10.i386.rpm                    |  14 MB 01:24
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Total                                           140 kB/s |  44 MB 05:18
>  ============================== Entering rpm code ========================
>  Running rpm_check_debug
>  ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
>  mono(gdk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  mono(glade-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  mono(glib-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  mono(gtk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  Complete!
>  (1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report'])
>
>          I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the 
>  error line.
>
>  	It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have 
>  been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to 2007).
>
>          So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try.
>
>          Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good, and 
>  urge me strongly not to go there.
>
>          I try yum update again; same result. One of the forum threads 
>  that I do get to suggests the OP remove something. I try "yum remove 
>  mono*" -- and get this :
>
>  Dependencies Resolved
>
>  ================================================================================
>   Package                  Arch      Version Repository      Size
>  ================================================================================
>  Removing:
>   mono-addins              i386      0.3.1-2.2.fc10         installed 715 k
>   mono-core                i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 25 M
>   mono-data                i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 3.8 M
>   mono-data-sqlite         i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 350 k
>   mono-extras              i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 637 k
>   mono-web                 i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 8.2 M
>   mono-winforms            i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 7.6 M
>  Removing for dependencies:
>   evolution-sharp          i386      0.18.1-1.fc10          installed 544 k
>   f-spot                   i386      0.4.4-6.fc10           installed 7.9 M
>   gmime-sharp              i386      2.2.21-1.fc10          installed 194 k
>   gnome-desktop-sharp      i386      2.24.0-3.fc10          installed 780 k
>   gnome-sharp              i386      2.24.0-1.fc10          installed 1.3 M
>   gsf-sharp                i386      0.8.1-8.fc10           installed 140 k
>   gtk-sharp2               i386      2.12.4-1.fc10          installed 2.6 M
>   ndesk-dbus               i386      0.6.1a-2.fc9           installed 126 k
>   ndesk-dbus-glib          i386      0.4.1-3.fc9            installed 11 k
>   sysinfo                  i386      0.7-1                  installed 336 k
>   taglib-sharp             i386      2.0.3.0-7.fc10         installed 433 k
>
>  Transaction Summary
>  ================================================================================
>  Install      0 Package(s)
>  Update       0 Package(s)
>  Remove      18 Package(s)
>
>          Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with things 
>  named sysinfo nor gnome-desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some such 
>  thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time with 
>  that ...)
>
>          So am I stymied?? (Three other F10 machines so far have updated 
>  just fine btw.)
>
>     
I do not have either mono or sysinfo installed.  So, I can only assume 
that it's OK to remove them.  Of course some apps might not work (isn't 
mono an implementation of .NET for Linux?)

Did you try :

yum remove sysinfo*

and then :

yum update

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:08:00 +0000 (UTC), Beartooth wrote:

>  
>          "yum update" on one of my F10 machines looks all right, even 
>  through the download -- and then I get this :
>  
>  (39/39): perl-5.10.0-52.fc10.i386.rpm                    |  14 MB 01:24
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Total                                           140 kB/s |  44 MB 05:18
>  ============================== Entering rpm code ========================
>  Running rpm_check_debug
>  ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
>  mono(gdk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  mono(glade-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  mono(glib-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  mono(gtk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386 
What do you get if you run

  rpm --query --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'

and

  repoquery --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'

?

In case you don't have repoquery yet, you can find it in the "yum-utils"
package.

There has been a gtk-shark2 update recently, and it certainly provides
these four things which are complained about.

"sysinfo" is not found in the Fedora package collection, however.
I wonder whether that might be of importance. If you "rpm -e sysinfo" it
and then try yum update again, any change?

>  Complete!
>  (1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report'])
>  
>          I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the 
>  error line.
>  
>  	It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have 
>  been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to 2007).
>  
>          So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try.
>  
>          Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good, and 
>  urge me strongly not to go there. 
Still you could choose to go there (and add an exception for the
certificate). ;)
 
>          I try yum update again; same result. One of the forum threads
>
>  that I do get to suggests the OP remove something. I try "yum remove 
>  mono*" -- and get this :
>  
>  Dependencies Resolved
>  
>  ================================================================================
>   Package                  Arch      Version Repository      Size
>  ================================================================================
>  Removing:
>   mono-addins              i386      0.3.1-2.2.fc10         installed 715 k
>   mono-core                i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 25 M
>   mono-data                i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 3.8 M
>   mono-data-sqlite         i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 350 k
>   mono-extras              i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 637 k
>   mono-web                 i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 8.2 M
>   mono-winforms            i386      2.0.1-12.fc10          installed 7.6 M
>  Removing for dependencies:
>   evolution-sharp          i386      0.18.1-1.fc10          installed 544 k
>   f-spot                   i386      0.4.4-6.fc10           installed 7.9 M
>   gmime-sharp              i386      2.2.21-1.fc10          installed 194 k
>   gnome-desktop-sharp      i386      2.24.0-3.fc10          installed 780 k
>   gnome-sharp              i386      2.24.0-1.fc10          installed 1.3 M
>   gsf-sharp                i386      0.8.1-8.fc10           installed 140 k
>   gtk-sharp2               i386      2.12.4-1.fc10          installed 2.6 M
>   ndesk-dbus               i386      0.6.1a-2.fc9           installed 126 k
>   ndesk-dbus-glib          i386      0.4.1-3.fc9            installed 11 k
>   sysinfo                  i386      0.7-1                  installed 336 k
>   taglib-sharp             i386      2.0.3.0-7.fc10         installed 433 k
>  
>  Transaction Summary
>  ================================================================================
>  Install      0 Package(s)
>  Update       0 Package(s)
>  Remove      18 Package(s)
>  
>          Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with things 
>  named sysinfo nor gnome-desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some such 
>  thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time with 
>  that ...) 
If it prints a list of what packages it will remove, it won't silently
remove itself.

What makes "yum remove ..." dangerous is that other dependency chains
are much longer and would lead to removing many more packages. Paying
close attention to the printed list and the y/n safety check is
very important.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:22:37 +0000 (UTC), Beartooth wrote:

>  On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:22:21 -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
>  	[...]
>  > Before you manually remove any of the packages listed run "yum upgrade"
>  > again. 
>  
>  	Sic?? Do you really mean upGRADE?? unless I'm very deeply 
>  mistaken, I have not used that, ever, on any machine. (I've done a lot of 
>  upgrading, but always with media, under anaconda on the media.) 
They are the same with current configuration defaults.

See "man yum". Look up the "update" and "upgrade" commands
and also the
"--obsoletes" option, which is relevant here. Notice that /etc/yum.conf
defaults to obsoletes=1 (i.e. this setting is enabled by default).

Don't be afraid. This command does NOT (!) do an automatic upgrade of
Fedora to another Fedora release inspite of some people spreading
FUD like that. ;)

[Beartooth]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:22:21 -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
	[...]
>  Before you manually remove any of the packages listed run "yum
> upgrade"
>  again.  
	Sic?? Do you really mean upGRADE?? unless I'm very deeply 
mistaken, I have not used that, ever, on any machine. (I've done a lot of 
upgrading, but always with media, under anaconda on the media.)

	Or is it a typo for "yum update," as I'm guessing?

>  "package-cleanup --orphans" is really a dumb utility. It
> only
>  tells you that the package is no longer in a active repository. The
>  listed package(s) may have been obsoleted due to a pending update.
>   Packages listed may also include those you installed from outside of
>  the repository system, e.g. Opera,  Adobe Flashplayer or other third
>  party rpm package. 
	OK; and after the yum command above (whichever), start doing "yum 
remove" against individual items other than Opera, etc??

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

[Jef Spaleta]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Beartooth <Beartooth(a)swva.net&gt; wrote:
>         Very Dumb Question : Are these lists telling me what *has
> been*
>  removed? Or what I *may wish to* remove, or ...? IOW, am I done?? 
It did not remove anything. It found and listed the orphans. If you
run the same command again, you should get the exact same list.
orphans are defined as being the specific packages you have currently
installed which do not match the name-version-release.arch of packages
available in any enabled repository.

Care must be taken when choosing what to remove, because you can
install rpms manually which are not from a repository, they will be
listed as orphans as well. your opera and flash packages are suspect
were downloaded and installed without using a repository.

-jef

[Kam Leo]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Beartooth <Beartooth(a)swva.net&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:32:57 -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
>
> > It will probably do you or anyone who upgrades a system to run
> > `package-cleanup --orphans' to find old packages no longer resident in
> > enabled repositories.
>
>         OK : On machine #1, Hbsk2, I get :
>
>  [root@Hbsk2 ~]# package-cleanup --orphans
>  Setting up yum
>  Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
>  flash-plugin-9.0.124.0-release.i386
>  gmime-2.2.21-2.fc9.i386
>  gnome-packagekit-0.3.12-3.fc9.i386
>  kernel-2.6.27.7-53.fc9.i686
>  kernel-2.6.27.9-73.fc9.i686
>  kernel-devel-2.6.27.7-53.fc9.i686
>  kernel-devel-2.6.27.9-73.fc9.i686
>  kmenu-gnome-0.8-1.fc9.noarch
>  mono-addins-0.3.1-3.fc9.i386
>  opera-9.63-2474.gcc4.shared.qt3.i386
>  setroubleshoot-2.0.12-4.fc9.noarch
>  setroubleshoot-server-2.0.12-4.fc9.noarch
>  xorg-x11-drv-evdev-2.0.8-1.fc9.i386
>  [root@Hbsk2 ~]#
>
>         On the one that had the yum woes, #2, Hbsk (which #1 mostly
>  replaces, and which is therefore Prime Backup) I get a similar result :
>
>  [root@Hbsk ~]# package-cleanup --orphans
>  Setting up yum
>  Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, fedorakmod, kernel-module, refresh-
>  packagekit
>  Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
>   * livna: rpm.livna.org
>   * fedora: fedora.mirrors.tds.net
>   * rpmfusion-free-updates: astromirror.uchicago.edu
>   * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: astromirror.uchicago.edu
>   * rpmfusion-free: astromirror.uchicago.edu
>   * updates: fedora.mirrors.tds.net
>   * rpmfusion-nonfree: astromirror.uchicago.edu
>  akode-2.0.2-5.fc9.i386
>  akode-pulseaudio-2.0.2-5.fc9.i386
>  fedorainfinity-kdm-theme-1.0.4-1.fc8.noarch
>  flash-plugin-10.0.12.36-release.i386
>  gnome-spell-1.0.8-5.fc9.i386
>  kdebindings-dcopperl-3.5.9-1.fc8.i386
>  kernel-2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686
>  kernel-devel-2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686
>  kleansweep-0.2.9-8.fc9.i386
>  kmenu-gnome-0.8-1.fc9.noarch
>  libflashsupport-000-0.5.svn20070904.i386
>  opera-9.63-2474.gcc4.shared.qt3.i386
>  setroubleshoot-2.0.12-4.fc9.noarch
>  setroubleshoot-server-2.0.12-4.fc9.noarch
>  system-config-soundcard-2.0.6-11.fc8.noarch
>  xorg-x11-drv-cyrix-1.1.0-5.fc8.i386
>  xorg-x11-drv-nsc-2.8.1-4.fc8.i386
>  xorg-x11-drv-via-0.2.2-4.fc8.i386
>  xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.2-3.fc8.noarch
>  [root@Hbsk ~]#
>
>         Very Dumb Question : Are these lists telling me what *has been*
>  removed? Or what I *may wish to* remove, or ...? IOW, am I done??
>
>  --
>  Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
>  Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about. 
Before you manually remove any of the packages listed run "yum
upgrade" again. "package-cleanup --orphans" is really a dumb utility.
It only tells you that the package is no longer in a active
repository. The listed package(s) may have been obsoleted due to a
pending update.
 Packages listed may also include those you installed from outside of
the repository system, e.g. Opera,  Adobe Flashplayer or other third
party rpm package.

[Beartooth]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:32:57 -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
	
>  It will probably do you or anyone who upgrades a system to run
>  `package-cleanup --orphans' to find old packages no longer resident in
>  enabled repositories. 
	OK : On machine #1, Hbsk2, I get :

[root@Hbsk2 ~]# package-cleanup --orphans
Setting up yum
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
flash-plugin-9.0.124.0-release.i386
gmime-2.2.21-2.fc9.i386
gnome-packagekit-0.3.12-3.fc9.i386
kernel-2.6.27.7-53.fc9.i686
kernel-2.6.27.9-73.fc9.i686
kernel-devel-2.6.27.7-53.fc9.i686
kernel-devel-2.6.27.9-73.fc9.i686
kmenu-gnome-0.8-1.fc9.noarch
mono-addins-0.3.1-3.fc9.i386
opera-9.63-2474.gcc4.shared.qt3.i386
setroubleshoot-2.0.12-4.fc9.noarch
setroubleshoot-server-2.0.12-4.fc9.noarch
xorg-x11-drv-evdev-2.0.8-1.fc9.i386
[root@Hbsk2 ~]#

	On the one that had the yum woes, #2, Hbsk (which #1 mostly 
replaces, and which is therefore Prime Backup) I get a similar result : 

[root@Hbsk ~]# package-cleanup --orphans
Setting up yum
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, fedorakmod, kernel-module, refresh-
packagekit
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
 * livna: rpm.livna.org
 * fedora: fedora.mirrors.tds.net
 * rpmfusion-free-updates: astromirror.uchicago.edu
 * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: astromirror.uchicago.edu
 * rpmfusion-free: astromirror.uchicago.edu
 * updates: fedora.mirrors.tds.net
 * rpmfusion-nonfree: astromirror.uchicago.edu
akode-2.0.2-5.fc9.i386
akode-pulseaudio-2.0.2-5.fc9.i386
fedorainfinity-kdm-theme-1.0.4-1.fc8.noarch
flash-plugin-10.0.12.36-release.i386
gnome-spell-1.0.8-5.fc9.i386
kdebindings-dcopperl-3.5.9-1.fc8.i386
kernel-2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686
kernel-devel-2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686
kleansweep-0.2.9-8.fc9.i386
kmenu-gnome-0.8-1.fc9.noarch
libflashsupport-000-0.5.svn20070904.i386
opera-9.63-2474.gcc4.shared.qt3.i386
setroubleshoot-2.0.12-4.fc9.noarch
setroubleshoot-server-2.0.12-4.fc9.noarch
system-config-soundcard-2.0.6-11.fc8.noarch
xorg-x11-drv-cyrix-1.1.0-5.fc8.i386
xorg-x11-drv-nsc-2.8.1-4.fc8.i386
xorg-x11-drv-via-0.2.2-4.fc8.i386
xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.2-3.fc8.noarch
[root@Hbsk ~]#

	Very Dumb Question : Are these lists telling me what *has been* 
removed? Or what I *may wish to* remove, or ...? IOW, am I done??

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

[Aaron Konstam]

On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 21:53 +0000, Beartooth wrote:
>  On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:04:20 -0600, Ron Siven wrote:
>  	[....]
>  > I do not have either mono or sysinfo installed.  So, I can only assume
>  > that it's OK to remove them.  Of course some apps might not work (isn't
>  > mono an implementation of .NET for Linux?)
>  > 
>  > Did you try :
>  > 
>  > yum remove sysinfo*
>  > 
>  > and then :
>  > 
>  > yum update
>  
>  	You got it, I think. The first command took only that one thing.
>  
>  	Then yum update ran -- and, oddly, when I then told it "yum 
>  install sysinfo," it found no such package. I made that "sysinfo*" and it
>
>  seems to be looking harder and further afield ...
>   
Should be: yum install sysinfo\*
The way yoou have it the shell expands the * rather than yum expandong
it.
>  -- 
>  Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
>  Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.
>   
--
=======================================================================
The trouble with a lot of self-made men is that they worship their
creator.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: [phone] e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net

[Kam Leo]

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Beartooth <Beartooth(a)swva.net&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:03:20 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:08:00 +0000 (UTC), Beartooth wrote:
>         [...]
> > What do you get if you run
> >
> >   rpm --query --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
> >
> > and
> >
> >   repoquery --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
> >
> > ?
>         The first tells me an rpm for gtk-sharp; the second just gives my
>  root prompt back.
>
> >
> > In case you don't have repoquery yet, you can find it in the
> "yum-utils"
> > package.
>
>         I tried "yum install yum-utils" -- it says I have it, and it's
>  the latest.
>
> > There has been a gtk-shark2 update recently, and it certainly provides
> > these four things which are complained about.
> >
> > "sysinfo" is not found in the Fedora package collection, however. I
> > wonder whether that might be of importance. If you "rpm -e sysinfo" it
> > and then try yum update again, any change?
> >
> >> Complete!
> >> (1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report'])
> >>
> >>         I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the
> >> error line.
> >>
> >>      It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have
> >> been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to
> >> 2007).
> >>
> >>         So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try.
> >>
> >>         Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good,
> >>         and
> >> urge me strongly not to go there.
> >
> > Still you could choose to go there (and add an exception for the
> > certificate). ;)
>
>         I tried it, and the warnings got stronger; one (Galeon or
>  Epiphany) assured me that no honest X,Y, or Z (which seemed to cover 99
>  44/100% of the waterfront among them) would ever ask me to do that.
>  That's when I quit and asked here instead. *Can* someone vouch for
>  yum.baseurl.org -- including that nobody could be spoofing it??
>
>         I'd've done it if it'd been a site I know; but it isn't.
>
>         [....]
> >> Transaction Summary
> >>
>  ================================================================================
> >> Install      0 Package(s)
> >> Update       0 Package(s)
> >> Remove      18 Package(s)
> >>
> >>         Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with
> >>         things
> >> named sysinfo nor gnome-desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some
> >> such thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time
> >> with that ...)
>
>         Now, after Ron Siven's assurance here, I have removed "sysinfo"
>  -- and everything seems fine. Some sort of orphan from an old install,
>  maybe ....
>
> > If it prints a list of what packages it will remove, it won't silently
> > remove itself.
>
>         Yes; many a time have I taken advantage of that.
>
> > What makes "yum remove ..." dangerous is that other dependency chains
> > are much longer and would lead to removing many more packages. Paying
> > close attention to the printed list and the y/n safety check is very
> > important.
>
>         Yes!!
>
>         Many many thanks!
>
>  --
>  Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
>  Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about. 
It will probably do you or anyone who upgrades a system to run
`package-cleanup --orphans' to find old packages no longer resident in
enabled repositories.

[Beartooth]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:04:20 -0600, Ron Siven wrote:
	[....]
>  I do not have either mono or sysinfo installed.  So, I can only
> assume
>  that it's OK to remove them.  Of course some apps might not work (isn't
>  mono an implementation of .NET for Linux?)
>  
>  Did you try :
>  
>  yum remove sysinfo*
>  
>  and then :
>  
>  yum update 
	You got it, I think. The first command took only that one thing.

	Then yum update ran -- and, oddly, when I then told it "yum 
install sysinfo," it found no such package. I made that "sysinfo*" and it 
seems to be looking harder and further afield ...

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:03:20 +0100, Michael wrote:

>  > mono(gdk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  > mono(glade-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  > mono(glib-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  > mono(gtk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
>  
>  What do you get if you run
>  
>    rpm --query --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
>  
>  and
>  
>    repoquery --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
>  
>  ?
>  
>  In case you don't have repoquery yet, you can find it in the "yum-utils"
>  package. 
Alternatively "  yum whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'  " but its output
is more verbose and looks very different.

[Beartooth]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:23:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

>  On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:22:37 +0000 (UTC), Beartooth wrote:
	[....] 
> > 	Do you really mean upGRADE?? unless I'm very deeply
> > mistaken, I have not used that, ever, on any machine. (I've done a lot
> > of upgrading, but always with media, under anaconda on the media.)
>  
>  They are the same with current configuration defaults.
>  
>  See "man yum". Look up the "update" and "upgrade" commands
> and also the
>  "--obsoletes" option, which is relevant here. Notice that /etc/yum.conf
>  defaults to obsoletes=1 (i.e. this setting is enabled by default).
>  
>  Don't be afraid. This command does NOT (!) do an automatic upgrade of
>  Fedora to another Fedora release in spite of some people spreading FUD
>  like that. ;) 
	I didn't hear it; I just failed to catch the changes, and took 
for granted that the two were still different. Iow, my bad, not some 
fudster's. <sigh>

	Given that the two are now the same, I must be OK, since I've 
kept on, with that machine as well as the rest, doing my routine updating 
procedure every day or two -- right?

	So the next thing, afaict, is to go through the orphan list, 
eliminate apps I've installed outside yum and the repos, such as Opera, 
and start removing the others, one at a time, with "yum remove" -- right?

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

[Beartooth]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:03:20 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

>  On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:08:00 +0000 (UTC), Beartooth wrote:
	[...] 
>  What do you get if you run
>  
>    rpm --query --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
>  
>  and
>  
>    repoquery --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)'
>  
>  ? 
	The first tells me an rpm for gtk-sharp; the second just gives my 
root prompt back.

>  
>  In case you don't have repoquery yet, you can find it in the "yum-utils"
>  package. 
	I tried "yum install yum-utils" -- it says I have it, and it's 
the latest.

>  There has been a gtk-shark2 update recently, and it certainly
> provides
>  these four things which are complained about.
>  
>  "sysinfo" is not found in the Fedora package collection, however. I
>  wonder whether that might be of importance. If you "rpm -e sysinfo" it
>  and then try yum update again, any change?
>  
> > Complete!
> > (1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report'])
> > 
> >         I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the
> > error line.
> > 
> > 	It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have
> > been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to
> > 2007).
> > 
> >         So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try.
> > 
> >         Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good,
> >         and
> > urge me strongly not to go there.
>  
>  Still you could choose to go there (and add an exception for the
>  certificate). ;) 
	I tried it, and the warnings got stronger; one (Galeon or 
Epiphany) assured me that no honest X,Y, or Z (which seemed to cover 99 
44/100% of the waterfront among them) would ever ask me to do that. 
That's when I quit and asked here instead. *Can* someone vouch for 
yum.baseurl.org -- including that nobody could be spoofing it??

	I'd've done it if it'd been a site I know; but it isn't.
  
	[....]
> > Transaction Summary
> > 
================================================================================
> > Install      0 Package(s)
> > Update       0 Package(s)
> > Remove      18 Package(s)
> > 
> >         Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with
> >         things
> > named sysinfo nor gnome-desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some
> > such thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time
> > with that ...) 
	Now, after Ron Siven's assurance here, I have removed "sysinfo" 
-- and everything seems fine. Some sort of orphan from an old install, 
maybe ....

>  If it prints a list of what packages it will remove, it won't
> silently
>  remove itself. 
	Yes; many a time have I taken advantage of that.

>  What makes "yum remove ..." dangerous is that other
> dependency chains
>  are much longer and would lead to removing many more packages. Paying
>  close attention to the printed list and the y/n safety check is very
>  important. 
	Yes!!

	Many many thanks!

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.