Hi,
I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended on site https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there are any old packages that should be removed because they would not be working properly anyway, and received the following messages which to me make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora 23 kernels that is still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the kernel listed in the 2nd message is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24. Hence the bottom line is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is dnf reporting that it can't find them?
package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-uname-r = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r = 4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
regards,
Steve
On 07/06/16 05:31, Stephen Morris wrote:
I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended on sitehttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there are any old packages that should be removed because they would not be working properly anyway, and received the following messages which to me make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora 23 kernels thatis still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the kernel listed in the 2nd message is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24. Hence the bottom line is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is dnf reporting that it can't find them?
package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-uname-r = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r = 4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
Since these are rpmfusion supplied packages you'd best be asking on their list. But, obviously, they can be ignored. :-) :-)
On 06/07/16 07:55, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 07/06/16 05:31, Stephen Morris wrote:
I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended on sitehttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there are any old packages that should be removed because they would not be working properly anyway, and received the following messages which to me make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora 23 kernels thatis still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the kernel listed in the 2nd message is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24. Hence the bottom line is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is dnf reporting that it can't find them?
package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-uname-r = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r = 4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
Since these are rpmfusion supplied packages you'd best be asking on their list. But, obviously, they can be ignored. :-) :-)
Thanks Ed. They aren't rpmfusion packages I don't think. I think they are coming from Negativo17, but I will ask on the appropriate list. Just as a matter of interest, now that they are installed is there any way I can tell which repository they actually came from?
regards, Steve
On 07/06/16 06:43, Stephen Morris wrote:
Thanks Ed. They aren't rpmfusion packages I don't think. I think they are coming from Negativo17, but I will ask on the appropriate list. Just as a matter of interest, now that they are installed is there any way I can tell which repository they actually came from?
Well, something like
dnf repoquery -i kmod-nvidia-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64-367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 *may* do it. I say "may" since if you are using akmod they get built locally an you'll see
Packager : None
In that case you'd probably get an related answer by querying akmod-nvidia.
On 06/07/16 09:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 07/06/16 06:43, Stephen Morris wrote:
Thanks Ed. They aren't rpmfusion packages I don't think. I think they are coming from Negativo17, but I will ask on the appropriate list. Just as a matter of interest, now that they are installed is there any way I can tell which repository they actually came from?
Well, something like
dnf repoquery -i kmod-nvidia-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64-367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 *may* do it. I say "may" since if you are using akmod they get built locally an you'll see
Packager : None
In that case you'd probably get an related answer by querying akmod-nvidia.
Thanks Ed. I issued the command and got back Packager: None. I then tried the same command on a package that I know only exists in the Negativo17 repositories and that gave the same response of Packager : None.
regards, Steve
On 07/07/16 06:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
Thanks Ed. I issued the command and got back Packager: None. I then tried the same command on a package that I know only exists in the Negativo17 repositories and that gave the same response of Packager : None.
Another option...
dnf info kmod-nvidia
On 07/07/16 09:49, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 07/07/16 06:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
Thanks Ed. I issued the command and got back Packager: None. I then tried the same command on a package that I know only exists in the Negativo17 repositories and that gave the same response of Packager : None.
Another option...
dnf info kmod-nvidia
Thanks Ed, I tried that command and it did tell me that it was indeed installed and which repository it came from. I then tried a dnf info kmod-nvidia* which showed me all the associated packages from the Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories. It also told me that the kmod-nvidia-$(uname -r) packages were installed and came from repository @commandline, which I assume means they were compiled, which surprised me because I thought the purpose of the kmod-nvidia metadata package was to pull in and install the pre-compiled nvidia binary packages matching the kernel, is that not correct?
I also thought the akmod-nvidia package was in both the Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories, but when I issue 'dnf info akmod-nvidia' it only shows me information relative the installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository. Shouldn't it have told me that there was an installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository and an uninstalled version in the Rpmfusion repository?
Just relative to the 2nd message in my original thread, isn't that message for the standard F24 kernel, saying that it has an unsatisfiable dependency on the associated kernel-core package? My issue with that is if that is the case, how and why did a 'sudo dnf upgrade' issued the day after the upgrade install that kernel, because I believe the missing dependency should have stopped it from being installed, or am I missing something?
regards, Steve
On 07/07/2016 02:51 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 07/07/16 09:49, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 07/07/16 06:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
Thanks Ed. I issued the command and got back Packager: None. I then tried the same command on a package that I know only exists in the Negativo17 repositories and that gave the same response of Packager : None.
Another option...
dnf info kmod-nvidia
Thanks Ed, I tried that command and it did tell me that it was indeed installed and which repository it came from. I then tried a dnf info kmod-nvidia* which showed me all the associated packages from the Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories. It also told me that the kmod-nvidia-$(uname -r) packages were installed and came from repository @commandline, which I assume means they were compiled, which surprised me because I thought the purpose of the kmod-nvidia metadata package was to pull in and install the pre-compiled nvidia binary packages matching the kernel, is that not correct?
"@@commandline" means that the RPM was installed from an RPM residing on the local disk and not from the web. Any time you install an RPM from a local disk file (regardless of where you downloaded it from), it will appear to come from the "@@comandline" repo since dnf didn't go out and fetch the RPM itself.
I also thought the akmod-nvidia package was in both the Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories, but when I issue 'dnf info akmod-nvidia' it only shows me information relative the installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository. Shouldn't it have told me that there was an installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository and an uninstalled version in the Rpmfusion repository?
I would think under "Installed Packages" it would list the installed one from "@@commandline" and under "Available Packages" the ones available from Negativo17 and rpmfusion.
I'm not running akmod-nvidia on my F23 box, but searching for any "akmod*" stuff:
[root@prophead ~]# dnf list akmod* Last metadata expiration check: 0:06:56 ago on Thu Jul 7 14:51:02 2016. Installed Packages akmod-VirtualBox.x86_64 5.0.16-2.fc23 @@commandline akmods.noarch 0.5.4-2.fc23 @@commandline Available Packages akmod-ndiswrapper.x86_64 1.60-1.fc23 rpmfusion-free akmod-nvidia.x86_64 1:358.16-1.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-nvidia-304xx.x86_64 304.131-2.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-nvidia-340xx.x86_64 1:340.96-1.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-wl.x86_64 6.30.223.271-4.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-xtables-addons.x86_64 2.10-1.fc23 rpmfusion-free
Yes, the akmod-VirtualBox and akmods.noarch were installed from RPMs I had downloaded previously.
Just relative to the 2nd message in my original thread, isn't that message for the standard F24 kernel, saying that it has an unsatisfiable dependency on the associated kernel-core package? My issue with that is if that is the case, how and why did a 'sudo dnf upgrade' issued the day after the upgrade install that kernel, because I believe the missing dependency should have stopped it from being installed, or am I missing something?
regards, Steve
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
On 08/07/16 08:11, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 07/07/2016 02:51 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 07/07/16 09:49, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 07/07/16 06:10, Stephen Morris wrote:
Thanks Ed. I issued the command and got back Packager: None. I then tried the same command on a package that I know only exists in the Negativo17 repositories and that gave the same response of Packager : None.
Another option...
dnf info kmod-nvidia
Thanks Ed, I tried that command and it did tell me that it was indeed installed and which repository it came from. I then tried a dnf info kmod-nvidia* which showed me all the associated packages from the Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories. It also told me that the kmod-nvidia-$(uname -r) packages were installed and came from repository @commandline, which I assume means they were compiled, which surprised me because I thought the purpose of the kmod-nvidia metadata package was to pull in and install the pre-compiled nvidia binary packages matching the kernel, is that not correct?
"@@commandline" means that the RPM was installed from an RPM residing on the local disk and not from the web. Any time you install an RPM from a local disk file (regardless of where you downloaded it from), it will appear to come from the "@@comandline" repo since dnf didn't go out and fetch the RPM itself.
Thanks Rick, I had installed those packages manually at one point because the upgrade broke Xorg both for the nvidia packages an nouveau, but I thought I had uninstalled the manually installed versions before I eventually got to the install method that enabled the nvidia packages to work.
I also thought the akmod-nvidia package was in both the Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories, but when I issue 'dnf info akmod-nvidia' it only shows me information relative the installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository. Shouldn't it have told me that there was an installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository and an uninstalled version in the Rpmfusion repository?
I would think under "Installed Packages" it would list the installed one from "@@commandline" and under "Available Packages" the ones available from Negativo17 and rpmfusion.
I'm not running akmod-nvidia on my F23 box, but searching for any "akmod*" stuff:
[root@prophead ~]# dnf list akmod* Last metadata expiration check: 0:06:56 ago on Thu Jul 7 14:51:02 2016. Installed Packages akmod-VirtualBox.x86_64 5.0.16-2.fc23 @@commandline akmods.noarch 0.5.4-2.fc23 @@commandline Available Packages akmod-ndiswrapper.x86_64 1.60-1.fc23 rpmfusion-free akmod-nvidia.x86_64 1:358.16-1.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-nvidia-304xx.x86_64 304.131-2.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-nvidia-340xx.x86_64 1:340.96-1.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-wl.x86_64 6.30.223.271-4.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-xtables-addons.x86_64 2.10-1.fc23 rpmfusion-free
Yes, the akmod-VirtualBox and akmods.noarch were installed from RPMs I had downloaded previously.
From the command you have listed and what the same command shows on my system, is that the akmod-nvidia packages in the two repositories are named differently, I thought they were the same name.
regards, Steve
Just relative to the 2nd message in my original thread, isn't that message for the standard F24 kernel, saying that it has an unsatisfiable dependency on the associated kernel-core package? My issue with that is if that is the case, how and why did a 'sudo dnf upgrade' issued the day after the upgrade install that kernel, because I believe the missing dependency should have stopped it from being installed, or am I missing something?
regards, Steve
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
On 05/07/16 15:31, Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi,
I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended onsite https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there are any old packages that should be removed because they would not be working properly anyway, and received the following messages which to me make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora23 kernels that is still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the kernel listed in the 2nd message is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24. Hence the bottom line is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is dnf reporting that it can't find them?
package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-uname-r = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r = 4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
regards,
Steve
Did you get to boot into F24? You said it was "after" the upgrade?
I have upgraded in the past and got stuck with old kernels before. A bit of a mess to clean up but it worked.
Robin
On 07/07/16 12:36, Robin Laing wrote:
On 05/07/16 15:31, Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi,
I have issued the command specified in the subject as recommended onsite https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to see if there are any old packages that should be removed because they would not be working properly anyway, and received the following messages which to me make no sense, unless I am completely misinterpreting the message.
The kernel mentioned in the first message is the last of the Fedora23 kernels that is still installed after the upgrade to F24, while the kernel listed in the 2nd message is the kernel installed by a sudo dnf upgrade issued the day after the upgrade to F24. Hence the bottom line is both kernels mentioned in the messages are installed, so why is dnf reporting that it can't find them?
package kmod-nvidia-4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64-2:367.27-1.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-uname-r = 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed package kernel-4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64 requires kernel-core-uname-r = 4.6.3-300.fc24.x86_64, but none of the providers can be installed
regards,
Steve
Did you get to boot into F24? You said it was "after" the upgrade?
I have upgraded in the past and got stuck with old kernels before. A bit of a mess to clean up but it worked.
I am using F24. Before the upgrade to F24 I had 3 kernels in F23 being maintained by dnf, when I upgraded to F24 the oldest F23 kernel was removed when the first F24 kernel was installed as per normal dnf functionality. My main problem with the messages was I didn't understand how there could be an unsatisfiable dependency on a kernel that was already installed, and in the case of the first message was installed before the upgrade.
regards, Steve
Robin
users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
-
Ed Greshko -
Rick Stevens -
Robin Laing -
Stephen Morris