Where is my qemu ? Can i install it without breaking everythin

[thibaut noah]

Hello, when i first install my setup i used alex's blog :
http://vfio.blogspot.fr/2015/05/vfio-gpu-how-to-series-part-3-host.html
Thus it seems i installed qemu by adding fedora virt preview repository and
updating fedora :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_Preview_Repository

Problem is when i list my packages with dnf list qemu i got :
qemu.x86_64      2:2.5.-6.fc23      fedora-virt-preview

Problem is i cannot remove this package using this name, it doesn't work.
Using dnf update i can see on the updated list :

qemu-common
qemu-guest-agent
qemu-img
qemu-kvm
qemu-system-x86

So question, how to get rid of this or just updating qemu to 2.5
If i remove the repo and upgrade the system to fedora 24 will this remove
the package thus allowing me to get the new version of qemu?

[stan]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:28:48 +0100
thibaut noah <thibaut.noah(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Hello, when i first install my setup i used alex's blog :
>  http://vfio.blogspot.fr/2015/05/vfio-gpu-how-to-series-part-3-host.html
>  Thus it seems i installed qemu by adding fedora virt preview
>  repository and updating fedora :
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_Preview_Repository
>  
>  Problem is when i list my packages with dnf list qemu i got :
>  qemu.x86_64      2:2.5.-6.fc23      fedora-virt-preview 
 
A package naming conflict because of different repositories.

>  Problem is i cannot remove this package using this name, it
> doesn't
>  work. Using dnf update i can see on the updated list :
>  
>  qemu-common
>  qemu-guest-agent
>  qemu-img
>  qemu-kvm
>  qemu-system-x86
>  
>  So question, how to get rid of this or just updating qemu to 2.5
>  If i remove the repo and upgrade the system to fedora 24 will this
>  remove the package thus allowing me to get the new version of qemu? 
Unlikely.  Actually, almost definitely no.

If you do rpm -qi qemu, does it give package information?  It should,
or else it isn't in the rpm database.  What does rpm -qa | grep -i qemu
show?

It makes no sense that dnf can't remove it if it is in the rpm
database.  Is there any kind of failure message?  What happens if you
use the -v (--verbose) option to dnf?  Do you have qemu set up as a
protected package?

If it is in the rpm database, it can be removed using rpm, as well.
The man page will tell you how.  But better to use the package manager
if you can.

I notice that the epoch on the virt-preview package is 2.  I don't know
what it is on the fedora package, but if it is less than 2, no updates
are going to occur as long as that virt-preview package is installed.

Mixing repositories is problematic for exactly this reason, unless
there is close coordination.

[thibaut noah]

2016-03-02 2:47 GMT+01:00 stan <stanl-fedorauser(a)vfemail.net&gt;:

>  Unlikely.  Actually, almost definitely no.
>
>  If you do rpm -qi qemu, does it give package information?  It should,
>  or else it isn't in the rpm database.  What does rpm -qa | grep -i qemu
>  show?
>  
Ok so i got this when i type the commands :

$ rpm -qi qemu
package qemu is not installed


$ rpm -qa | grep -i qemu
libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu-1.3.1-1.fc23.x86_64
qemu-kvm-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
qemu-guest-agent-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
qemu-system-x86-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
qemu-img-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
qemu-common-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
ipxe-roms-qemu-20150821-1.git4e03af8.fc23.noarch


>  It makes no sense that dnf can't remove it if it is in the rpm
>  database.  Is there any kind of failure message?  What happens if you
>  use the -v (--verbose) option to dnf?  Do you have qemu set up as a
>  protected package?
>
>  using the verbose on the removal give me this : 
$ dnf remove -v qemu.x86_64
cachedir: /var/cache/dnf
Loaded plugins: needs-restarting, debuginfo-install, reposync, copr,
playground, download, config-manager, Query, builddep, protected_packages,
noroot, langpacks, generate_completion_cache
langpacks: No languages are enabled
Error reading file : /var/lib/dnf/plugins/langpacks/installed_langpacks as
it does not exist
initialized Langpacks plugin
DNF version: 1.1.5
No match for argument: qemu.x86_64
Error: No packages marked for removal.



>  If it is in the rpm database, it can be removed using rpm, as well.
>  The man page will tell you how.  But better to use the package manager
>  if you can.
>
>  I notice that the epoch on the virt-preview package is 2.  I don't know
>  what it is on the fedora package, but if it is less than 2, no updates
>  are going to occur as long as that virt-preview package is installed.
>
>  Mixing repositories is problematic for exactly this reason, unless
>  there is close coordination. 


Well, back then i had almost no idea what is was doing so i followed the
tutorial to the letter, seemed like a good idea back then, i had so many
issue trying to install qemu manually at the time...

[stan]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 03:20:40 +0100
thibaut noah <thibaut.noah(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:


>  Ok so i got this when i type the commands :
>  
>  $ rpm -qi qemu
>  package qemu is not installed
>  
>  
>  $ rpm -qa | grep -i qemu
>  libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu-1.3.1-1.fc23.x86_64
>  qemu-kvm-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
>  qemu-guest-agent-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
>  qemu-system-x86-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
>  qemu-img-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
>  qemu-common-2.5.0-4.fc23.x86_64
>  ipxe-roms-qemu-20150821-1.git4e03af8.fc23.noarch 
And it's true, there is no package qemu installed.  So, I presume that
dnf found the package qemu at virt-preview, because the repository is
enabled, but that it is not installed.  What was the list command you
used?  dnf list?  Or dnf list installed?  Or dnf list available?  If
you used just dnf list, then it shows both packages that are installed
and available in repositories for installation.

>  using the verbose on the removal give me this :  
>  
>  $ dnf remove -v qemu.x86_64
>  cachedir: /var/cache/dnf
>  Loaded plugins: needs-restarting, debuginfo-install, reposync, copr,
>  playground, download, config-manager, Query, builddep,
>  protected_packages, noroot, langpacks, generate_completion_cache
>  langpacks: No languages are enabled
>  Error reading
>  file : /var/lib/dnf/plugins/langpacks/installed_langpacks as it does
>  not exist initialized Langpacks plugin
>  DNF version: 1.1.5
>  No match for argument: qemu.x86_64
>  Error: No packages marked for removal. 
And dnf is right, there is no package qemu installed.

>  Well, back then i had almost no idea what is was doing so i followed
>  the tutorial to the letter, seemed like a good idea back then, i had
>  so many issue trying to install qemu manually at the time... 
That makes sense.  And it obviously worked!  And I'm not saying you
should never use third party repositories, just to realize that if you
do, you could have problems.

So what does dnf say when you run
dnf -v upgrade qemu\*
?
From what you've posted, there is no reason that it shouldn't upgrade
the qemu packages, if there are updates available.  If the qemu package
at the virt-preview site is blocking the update because 2.5.-6 is
considered newer than the update packages version, you could turn off
the virt-preview repository in /etc/yum.repos.d, run dnf clean
metadata, run the transaction, and then turn virt-preview back on.

[thibaut noah]

2016-03-02 4:57 GMT+01:00 stan <stanl-fedorauser(a)vfemail.net&gt;:

>  And it's true, there is no package qemu installed.  So, I presume
> that
>  dnf found the package qemu at virt-preview, because the repository is
>  enabled, but that it is not installed.  What was the list command you
>  used?  dnf list?  Or dnf list installed?  Or dnf list available?  If
>  you used just dnf list, then it shows both packages that are installed
>  and available in repositories for installation.
>
>  yup i ran dnf list, my bad i thought it was listing installed packages. 

>  That makes sense.  And it obviously worked!  And I'm not saying
> you
>  should never use third party repositories, just to realize that if you
>  do, you could have problems.
>
>  So what does dnf say when you run
>  dnf -v upgrade qemu\*
>  ?
>  
Running this will make update all packages to 2:2.5.0-6.fc23.


>  From what you've posted, there is no reason that it shouldn't
> upgrade
>  the qemu packages, if there are updates available.  If the qemu package
>  at the virt-preview site is blocking the update because 2.5.-6 is
>  considered newer than the update packages version, you could turn off
>  the virt-preview repository in /etc/yum.repos.d, run dnf clean
>  metadata, run the transaction, and then turn virt-preview back on.
>  
 I think i misunderstand things on version numbers, thought 2:2.5.0-6 means
version 2.2... From what you say i have the feeling that i might be wrong
about this.
I'll try to clean things but first i want to find a way to remove
virt-preview packages and install everything i need manually, this is too
confusing.

[Tim]

On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 05:40 +0100, thibaut noah wrote:
>   I think i misunderstand things on version numbers, thought
> 2:2.5.0-6
>  means version 2.2... From what you say i have the feeling that i might
>  be wrong about this. 
epoch:version

epoch 2
version 2.5.0-6

Go by the decimals, file version something *point* something, has to
have decimals in it.  I've never got a grip on why there's hyphens in
the version numbers, though.

The epoch is a kind of hammer to crack a walnut, when someone needs to
force an "I am the greatest," when there is another package with a
higher version number.

-- 
tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp

Linux 3.19.8-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Tue May 12 17:42:35 UTC 2015 i686

All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying
to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.

George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.

[Todd Zullinger]

Tim wrote:
>  On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 05:40 +0100, thibaut noah wrote:
> > I think i misunderstand things on version numbers, thought 
> > 2:2.5.0-6 means version 2.2... From what you say i have the feeling 
> > that i might be wrong about this.
>
>  epoch:version
>
>  epoch 2 version 2.5.0-6
>
>  Go by the decimals, file version something *point* something, has to 
>  have decimals in it.  I've never got a grip on why there's hyphens 
>  in the version numbers, though. 
In the example above, 2.5.0-6 is ${version}-${release}.  The release 
field is used in an rpm whenever the package is changed, which might 
happen without updating the version.  It should typically start at 1 
and increment for each new package, resetting to 1 when the version is 
updated.

As an example, I package foo-1.0.  The rpm version-release will be 
1.0-1.  After I push it to the repos, someone finds a bug in the 
packaging (say I forgot to include a file).  When I fix the package, 
it will still be foo-1.0, but the release is incremented so it's now 
1.0-2.  When foo 1.1 or 2.0 is released upstream, the next package 
would be 1.1-1 or 2.0-1.

The rpm --queryformat option (--qf for short) might also be useful to 
this discussion.  If you want to query just the version without the 
epoch, release, etc. you can use --qf to do so.

$ rpm -q --qf '%{version}\n' qemu-kvm
2.3.1

All the tags available to the --queryformat option can be shown with 
rpm --querytags.

I realize that using rpm -q --qf might not be all that intuitive for 
new users, but it is a handy option.

It's also worth noting that repoquery (or now dnf repoquery, I guess) 
understands the --qf option (with the addition of the repoid tag to 
show the repo where a package was found).

$ dnf -d0 -e0 repoquery --qf '%{name} %{version} (%{repoid})' qemu-kvm
qemu-kvm 2.3.0 (fedora)
qemu-kvm 2.3.1 (@System)
qemu-kvm 2.3.1 (updates)

Hope this helps,

-- 
Todd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.
    -- Harry Emerson Fosdick

[thibaut noah]

Help a lot, thanks for clarifying things

2016-03-02 16:49 GMT+01:00 Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com&gt;:

>  Tim wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 05:40 +0100, thibaut noah wrote:
> >
> >> I think i misunderstand things on version numbers, thought 2:2.5.0-6
> >> means version 2.2... From what you say i have the feeling that i might be
> >> wrong about this.
> >>
> >
> > epoch:version
> >
> > epoch 2 version 2.5.0-6
> >
> > Go by the decimals, file version something *point* something, has to have
> > decimals in it.  I've never got a grip on why there's hyphens in the
> > version numbers, though.
> >
>
>  In the example above, 2.5.0-6 is ${version}-${release}.  The release field
>  is used in an rpm whenever the package is changed, which might happen
>  without updating the version.  It should typically start at 1 and increment
>  for each new package, resetting to 1 when the version is updated.
>
>  As an example, I package foo-1.0.  The rpm version-release will be 1.0-1.
>  After I push it to the repos, someone finds a bug in the packaging (say I
>  forgot to include a file).  When I fix the package, it will still be
>  foo-1.0, but the release is incremented so it's now 1.0-2.  When foo 1.1 or
>  2.0 is released upstream, the next package would be 1.1-1 or 2.0-1.
>
>  The rpm --queryformat option (--qf for short) might also be useful to this
>  discussion.  If you want to query just the version without the epoch,
>  release, etc. you can use --qf to do so.
>
>  $ rpm -q --qf '%{version}\n' qemu-kvm
>  2.3.1
>
>  All the tags available to the --queryformat option can be shown with rpm
>  --querytags.
>
>  I realize that using rpm -q --qf might not be all that intuitive for new
>  users, but it is a handy option.
>
>  It's also worth noting that repoquery (or now dnf repoquery, I guess)
>  understands the --qf option (with the addition of the repoid tag to show
>  the repo where a package was found).
>
>  $ dnf -d0 -e0 repoquery --qf '%{name} %{version} (%{repoid})' qemu-kvm
>  qemu-kvm 2.3.0 (fedora)
>  qemu-kvm 2.3.1 (@System)
>  qemu-kvm 2.3.1 (updates)
>
>  Hope this helps,
>
>  --
>  Todd
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.
>     -- Harry Emerson Fosdick
>
>
>  --
>  users mailing list
>  users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>  Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
>
>