Can't upgrade Fedora 17

[Mateusz Marzantowicz]

I can't cleanly upgrade my Fedora installation (I use --skip-broken),
below is error reported by yum:

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package febootstrap-supermin-helper.x86_64 0:3.20-1.fc17 will be
obsoleted
--> Processing Dependency: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3 for
package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64
---> Package supermin-helper.x86_64 0:4.1.1-1.fc17.2 will be obsoleting
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64 (@updates)
           Requires: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3
           Removing: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.20-1.fc17.x86_64
(@updates)
               febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.20-1.fc17
           Obsoleted By: supermin-helper-4.1.1-1.fc17.2.x86_64 (updates)
               Not found
           Available: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.14-4.fc17.2.x86_64
(fedora)
               febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.14-4.fc17.2
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest


This is not rawhide or other testing env. It's frequently updated
"stable" F17 system.

I'd like to ask here if anybody had this problem, before I start
remove/re-install package by package orgy.


Mateusz Marzantowicz

[Mateusz Marzantowicz]

On 21.04.2013 02:16, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>  The fact that you continue to deny a poor choice of subject rather
>  than just make a note to be very clear in future subjects makes me
>  sorry I spent time composing two answers, one to your subject and one
>  to your real problem.
>
>  Reindl tends to be blunt to the point of being rude, but often
>  helpful. By arguing with him you will probably get a higher ratio of
>  blunt to helpful from him, and two fewer answers from me. 
Thanks, for all suggestions. I'll choose subjects and terms more
precisely next time. Sorry for all your inconvenience and I hope you're
not going to blacklist my next messages.


Mateusz Marzantowicz

[Ed Greshko]

On 04/21/13 22:30, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
>  Thanks, for all suggestions. I'll choose subjects and terms more
>  precisely next time. Sorry for all your inconvenience and I hope you're
>  not going to blacklist my next messages. 
No....  But I may decide to blacklist others for being overly pedantic.  :-)

-- 
> From now on, at least during winter time, Im going to blame all
> spelling an grammar erros on the cat sitting on my chest every time I sit down at the
> computer....

[Reindl Harald]

Am 21.04.2013 03:23, schrieb Joe Zeff:
>  On 04/20/2013 05:05 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> >>> No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just doing
> >>> regular system update (or at last, I'm trying)
> >>
> >> * so please do NOT use the term "upgrade"
> >
> > Update would be easier to understand here
>  
>  At this time, is there really any difference between the two? 
not technical and this is why the subject was simply
wrong and argue like the OP that it was correct is
kind of silly

[Reindl Harald]

Am 21.04.2013 01:46, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
>  Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> > I can't cleanly upgrade my Fedora installation (I use --skip-broken),
> > below is error reported by yum:
> >
>  You have gained wisdom, the fc17->fc18 upgrade path(s) are not robust. Sometime
> f'ed-up will work, 
and if you would have read the thread you would have
seen that he speaks about a ordinary update not a
distr-upgrade and starts even discussions why "upgrade"
was not the wrong term, forget it

[Bill Davidsen]

Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
>  I can't cleanly upgrade my Fedora installation (I use
> --skip-broken),
>  below is error reported by yum:
>  
You have gained wisdom, the fc17->fc18 upgrade path(s) are not robust. Sometime

f'ed-up will work, sometimes yum will work, always fresh install will work.

NOTE: by "will work" I mean will result in a useful system after 1st reboot. 
Booting into a vermin ridden pile of dysfunctional features is not working, it 
is "salvageable" and no more.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com&gt;
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

[Joe Zeff]

On 04/20/2013 05:05 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>  Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> >> No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just doing
> >> regular system update (or at last, I'm trying)
> >
> > * so please do NOT use the term "upgrade"
>
>  Update would be easier to understand here 
At this time, is there really any difference between the two?

[Bill Davidsen]

Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
>  On 19.04.2013 10:15, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> > Am 19.04.2013 08:24, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> >> On 18.04.2013 23:18, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>> Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> >>>> No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just
> doing
> >>>> regular system update (or at last, I'm trying)
> >>> * so please do NOT use the term "upgrade"
> >> Why?
> > why?
> >
> > because if short at the EOL of F17 someone says "upgrade fails"
> > everybody but you has a dist-upgrade in mind and not a simple
> > package update
>
>  I don't like arguments about terms. They generally provide no solution
>  to original problem. I used term upgrade (without 'from .. to ..'
>  construction) because I can type yum upgrade in my shell to - do what?
>  To upgrade to the next release? Please remove upgrade option from yum or
>  don't tell me that I misused this term.
>  
You used it in a way that many people thought you meant a release upgrade. No 
matter how correct your usage might be if you don't use a subject which 
summarizes your problem you get poor answers or none.

>  Right now I don't care F17 is EOL. I have two or more months to
> upgrade
>  some of my systems to f18 or f19. Now, F17 is perfectly legal version so
>  I don't know why should I be the only person thinking about installing
>  latest packages for that particular version of Fedora.
>
> >> Yum uses this term
> > where does it that for a package update?
>
>   From man yum:
>
>  upgrade - Is the same as the update command with the --obsoletes flag
>  set. See update for more details.
>  
The fact that you continue to deny a poor choice of subject rather than just 
make a note to be very clear in future subjects makes me sorry I spent time 
composing two answers, one to your subject and one to your real problem.

Reindl tends to be blunt to the point of being rude, but often helpful. By 
arguing with him you will probably get a higher ratio of blunt to helpful from 
him, and two fewer answers from me.
>  Mateusz Marzantowicz
>  

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com&gt;
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

[Bill Davidsen]

Reindl Harald wrote:
>  Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> > No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just doing
> > regular system update (or at last, I'm trying)
>
>  * so please do NOT use the term "upgrade" 
Update would be easier to understand here

>  * do not use "--skip-broken" 
In general I agree, however, if you use rpmfusion they sometimes (last night) 
update kmod and akmod modules before the kernels move from testing to updates.

>  * analyze what deps are failing 
Definitely, these things can mean your mirror was updating, or that your rpmdb 
is hosed somehow.

>  * consider to wait a few days 
Indeed, this is the road to success in most cases, updates are not atomic, 
network issues are seldom the case, TCP is fairly good at detecting a bad packet.

>  * if it is not solved after a few days by newer updates write
> bugreports 
Again good advice.

What I do:
   early in the morning the system can run "yum --downloadonly upgrade"

When I start my day, I check the results, the RPM packages are now downloaded, I 
can run the real upgrade after I check for possible issues. That moves the time 
waiting for downloads out of "my time."

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com&gt;
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

[Reindl Harald]

Am 19.04.2013 10:50, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
>  I don't like arguments about terms. 
and i don't like discussions about clear subjects
like "yum does not solve dependencies" instead
"can't upgrade" while it is pretty clear that
such dep-problems in case of a normal update
are going away as they are coming while problems
with a dist-upgrade may need a specific bugreport

>  They generally provide no solution to original problem 
no, but if a topic is started with a clear subject
it is more likely that you get the right answers
especially if you strip the used command in your
initial post

>  I used term upgrade (without 'from .. to ..'
>  construction) because I can type yum upgrade in my shell to - do what?
>  To upgrade to the next release? Please remove upgrade option from yum or
>  don't tell me that I misused this term. 
there is a difference between a command-line option and
the intention of what you like to do, the subject sounds
like a failing dist-upgrade with yum

>  Right now I don't care F17 is EOL. I have two or more months to
> upgrade
>  some of my systems to f18 or f19. Now, F17 is perfectly legal version so
>  I don't know why should I be the only person thinking about installing
>  latest packages for that particular version of Fedora. 
because you used the wrong term in case of humans
we can discuss this now for hours or you simply
realize that a clear subject at start would be better

> >> Yum uses this term
> > where does it that for a package update?
>  
>  From man yum:
>  upgrade - Is the same as the update command with the --obsoletes flag
>  set. See update for more details 
so what

[Zoltan Boszormenyi]

2013-04-19 10:15 keltezéssel, Reindl Harald írta:
>  Am 19.04.2013 08:24, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> > On 18.04.2013 23:18, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> >>> No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just doing
> >>> regular system update (or at last, I'm trying)
> >> * so please do NOT use the term "upgrade"
> > Why?
>  why?
>
>  because if short at the EOL of F17 someone says "upgrade fails"
>  everybody but you has a dist-upgrade in mind and not a simple
>  package update
>
> > Yum uses this term
>  where does it that for a package update? 
I am not trying to be a troll or something, but "yum upgrade" is
the original command as far as I know and I always used it that way.
"distro-sync" and "update" came later.

Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi

[Reindl Harald]

Am 19.04.2013 08:24, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
>  On 18.04.2013 23:18, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> > Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> >> No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just doing
> >> regular system update (or at last, I'm trying)
> > * so please do NOT use the term "upgrade"
>  
>  Why?  
why?

because if short at the EOL of F17 someone says "upgrade fails"
everybody but you has a dist-upgrade in mind and not a simple
package update

>  Yum uses this term 
where does it that for a package update?

[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ yum update
Loaded plugins: etckeeper, presto, protectbase
rhsoft-fedora                                                                    | 2.9 kB 
00:00:00 !!!
rhsoft-generic                                                                   | 2.9 kB 
00:00:00
0 packages excluded due to repository protections
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package dmidecode.x86_64 1:2.11-9.fc18 will be updated
---> Package dmidecode.x86_64 1:2.12-1.fc18 will be an update
---> Package krb5-libs.x86_64 0:1.10.3-15.fc18 will be updated
---> Package krb5-libs.x86_64 0:1.10.3-16.fc18 will be an update
---> Package linux-firmware.noarch 0:20121218-0.2.gitbda53ca.fc18 will be updated
---> Package linux-firmware.noarch 0:20130418-0.1.gitb584174.fc18 will be an update
---> Package parted.x86_64 0:3.1-10.fc18 will be updated
---> Package parted.x86_64 0:3.1-12.fc18 will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
--> Finding unneeded leftover dependencies
Found and removing 0 unneeded dependencies

[Mateusz Marzantowicz]

On 19.04.2013 10:15, Reindl Harald wrote:
>  Am 19.04.2013 08:24, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> > On 18.04.2013 23:18, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> >>> No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just doing
> >>> regular system update (or at last, I'm trying)
> >> * so please do NOT use the term "upgrade"
> > Why? 
>  why?
>
>  because if short at the EOL of F17 someone says "upgrade fails"
>  everybody but you has a dist-upgrade in mind and not a simple
>  package update 
I don't like arguments about terms. They generally provide no solution
to original problem. I used term upgrade (without 'from .. to ..'
construction) because I can type yum upgrade in my shell to - do what?
To upgrade to the next release? Please remove upgrade option from yum or
don't tell me that I misused this term.

Right now I don't care F17 is EOL. I have two or more months to upgrade
some of my systems to f18 or f19. Now, F17 is perfectly legal version so
I don't know why should I be the only person thinking about installing
latest packages for that particular version of Fedora.

> > Yum uses this term
>  where does it that for a package update? 
> From man yum: 
upgrade - Is the same as the update command with the --obsoletes flag
set. See update for more details.


Mateusz Marzantowicz

[Mateusz Marzantowicz]

On 18.04.2013 23:22, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:41:06 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
>
> > I can't cleanly upgrade my Fedora installation (I use --skip-broken),
> > below is error reported by yum:
> >
> > Resolving Dependencies
> > --> Running transaction check
> > ---> Package febootstrap-supermin-helper.x86_64 0:3.20-1.fc17 will be
> > obsoleted
> > --> Processing Dependency: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3 for
> > package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64
> > ---> Package supermin-helper.x86_64 0:4.1.1-1.fc17.2 will be obsoleting
> > --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> > Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64 (@updates)
> >            Requires: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3
> >            Removing: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.20-1.fc17.x86_64
> > (@updates)
> >                febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.20-1.fc17
> >            Obsoleted By: supermin-helper-4.1.1-1.fc17.2.x86_64 (updates)
> >                Not found
> >            Available: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.14-4.fc17.2.x86_64
> > (fedora)
> >                febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.14-4.fc17.2
> >  You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
> >  You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
> >
> >
> > This is not rawhide or other testing env. It's frequently updated
> > "stable" F17 system.
> >
> > I'd like to ask here if anybody had this problem, before I start
> > remove/re-install package by package orgy.
>  File a bug report. If libguestfs requires "febootstrap-supermin-helper >=
> 3.3"
>  but "supermin-helper" obsoletes that one, either libguestfs needs an update
>  or supermin-helper needs to provide the stuff it takes away.
>
>  Also look in updates-testing whether there are fixes for this already.
>
>  http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/libguestfs
>  http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/supermin
>   -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953456
>      (supermin upgrade breaks dependency for libguestfs)
>  
Thanks! I was unable to find that bug reports but they explain all
problems I encountered.


Mateusz Marzantowicz

[Mateusz Marzantowicz]

On 18.04.2013 23:18, Reindl Harald wrote:
>  Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
> > No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just doing
> > regular system update (or at last, I'm trying)
>  * so please do NOT use the term "upgrade" 
Why? Yum uses this term.
>  * do not use "--skip-broken" 
Why? I have 10-20 other
packages to *update*. Why should I left them
because of one failure?
>  * analyze what deps are failing 
Yes, I will. I have no other
choice to maintain consistency in package
database other than debug pkg deps myself.
>  * consider to wait a few days 
This is an option but then I must
use --skip-broken to install other updates
>  * if it is not solved after a few days by newer updates write
> bugreports 
OK


Mateusz Marzantowicz

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.04.2013 22:41, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
>  I can't cleanly upgrade my Fedora installation (I use
> --skip-broken),
>  below is error reported by yum:
>  
>  Resolving Dependencies
>  --> Running transaction check
>  ---> Package febootstrap-supermin-helper.x86_64 0:3.20-1.fc17 will be
>  obsoleted
>  --> Processing Dependency: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3 for
>  package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64
>  ---> Package supermin-helper.x86_64 0:4.1.1-1.fc17.2 will be obsoleting
>  --> Finished Dependency Resolution
>  Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64 (@updates)
>             Requires: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3
>             Removing: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.20-1.fc17.x86_64
>  (@updates)
>                 febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.20-1.fc17
>             Obsoleted By: supermin-helper-4.1.1-1.fc17.2.x86_64 (updates)
>                 Not found
>             Available: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.14-4.fc17.2.x86_64
>  (fedora)
>                 febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.14-4.fc17.2
>   You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
>   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
>  
>  
>  This is not rawhide or other testing env. It's frequently updated
>  "stable" F17 system.
>  
>  I'd like to ask here if anybody had this problem, before I start
>  remove/re-install package by package orgy 
no orgy needed

none of this packages is system-critical
so you can remove them with "rpm -e --nodpes" until depsovle suceeds
most likely any dependencies will get installed automaticlly due upgrade
however, notice what you forced to remove

done that so many times in the past years.................

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:41:06 +0200, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:

>  I can't cleanly upgrade my Fedora installation (I use
> --skip-broken),
>  below is error reported by yum:
>  
>  Resolving Dependencies
>  --> Running transaction check
>  ---> Package febootstrap-supermin-helper.x86_64 0:3.20-1.fc17 will be
>  obsoleted
>  --> Processing Dependency: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3 for
>  package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64
>  ---> Package supermin-helper.x86_64 0:4.1.1-1.fc17.2 will be obsoleting
>  --> Finished Dependency Resolution
>  Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64 (@updates)
>             Requires: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3
>             Removing: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.20-1.fc17.x86_64
>  (@updates)
>                 febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.20-1.fc17
>             Obsoleted By: supermin-helper-4.1.1-1.fc17.2.x86_64 (updates)
>                 Not found
>             Available: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.14-4.fc17.2.x86_64
>  (fedora)
>                 febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.14-4.fc17.2
>   You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
>   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
>  
>  
>  This is not rawhide or other testing env. It's frequently updated
>  "stable" F17 system.
>  
>  I'd like to ask here if anybody had this problem, before I start
>  remove/re-install package by package orgy. 
File a bug report. If libguestfs requires "febootstrap-supermin-helper >=
3.3"
but "supermin-helper" obsoletes that one, either libguestfs needs an update
or supermin-helper needs to provide the stuff it takes away.

Also look in updates-testing whether there are fixes for this already.

http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/libguestfs
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/supermin
 -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953456
    (supermin upgrade breaks dependency for libguestfs)

-- 
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) - Linux
3.9.0-0.rc6.git2.3.fc19.x86_64 loadavg: 0.28 0.23 0.23

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.04.2013 23:08, schrieb Mateusz Marzantowicz:
>  No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just
> doing
>  regular system update (or at last, I'm trying) 
* so please do NOT use the term "upgrade"
* do not use "--skip-broken"
* analyze what deps are failing
* consider to wait a few days
* if it is not solved after a few days by newer updates write bugreports

[Mateusz Marzantowicz]

On 18.04.2013 23:02, Steven Stern wrote:
>  On 04/18/2013 03:41 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> > I can't cleanly upgrade my Fedora installation (I use --skip-broken),
> > below is error reported by yum:
> >
> > Resolving Dependencies
> > --> Running transaction check
> > ---> Package febootstrap-supermin-helper.x86_64 0:3.20-1.fc17 will be
> > obsoleted
> > --> Processing Dependency: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3 for
> > package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64
> > ---> Package supermin-helper.x86_64 0:4.1.1-1.fc17.2 will be obsoleting
> > --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> > Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64 (@updates)
> >            Requires: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3
> >            Removing: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.20-1.fc17.x86_64
> > (@updates)
> >                febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.20-1.fc17
> >            Obsoleted By: supermin-helper-4.1.1-1.fc17.2.x86_64 (updates)
> >                Not found
> >            Available: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.14-4.fc17.2.x86_64
> > (fedora)
> >                febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.14-4.fc17.2
> >  You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
> >  You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
> >
> >
> > This is not rawhide or other testing env. It's frequently updated
> > "stable" F17 system.
> >
> > I'd like to ask here if anybody had this problem, before I start
> > remove/re-install package by package orgy.
> >
> >
> > Mateusz Marzantowicz
> >
>  Did you try using FedUp?
>
>     yum install fedup
>     fedup-cli --network 18 --debuglog fedupdebug.log
>
>  
No, because I don't want to upgrade from f17 to f18. I'm just doing
regular system update (or at last, I'm trying).

Anyway, thanks for your reply.


Mateusz Marzantowicz

[SternData]

On 04/18/2013 03:41 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
>  I can't cleanly upgrade my Fedora installation (I use
> --skip-broken),
>  below is error reported by yum:
>  
>  Resolving Dependencies
>  --> Running transaction check
>  ---> Package febootstrap-supermin-helper.x86_64 0:3.20-1.fc17 will be
>  obsoleted
>  --> Processing Dependency: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3 for
>  package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64
>  ---> Package supermin-helper.x86_64 0:4.1.1-1.fc17.2 will be obsoleting
>  --> Finished Dependency Resolution
>  Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.11-2.fc17.x86_64 (@updates)
>             Requires: febootstrap-supermin-helper >= 3.3
>             Removing: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.20-1.fc17.x86_64
>  (@updates)
>                 febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.20-1.fc17
>             Obsoleted By: supermin-helper-4.1.1-1.fc17.2.x86_64 (updates)
>                 Not found
>             Available: febootstrap-supermin-helper-3.14-4.fc17.2.x86_64
>  (fedora)
>                 febootstrap-supermin-helper = 3.14-4.fc17.2
>   You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
>   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
>  
>  
>  This is not rawhide or other testing env. It's frequently updated
>  "stable" F17 system.
>  
>  I'd like to ask here if anybody had this problem, before I start
>  remove/re-install package by package orgy.
>  
>  
>  Mateusz Marzantowicz
>   
Did you try using FedUp?

   yum install fedup
   fedup-cli --network 18 --debuglog fedupdebug.log


see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedU...


-- 
-- Steve