-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm not sure I've ever seen this problem before doing updates, but here it is. I just ran my usual morning yum update on my primary server at home and I get 3 packages bomb with scriptlet errors during the update.
Virtually every update in the clean process puked with scriptlet failures and 3 didn't update either cleanly or at all. I've attached the output since it's pretty long.
My question is, WTF happened? My system is pretty clean. I never install packages by hand, only by either the standard Fedora repos or RPMFusion. These were all Fedora repo updates, FWIW. Did anyone else see this?
- -- Mark Haney Network Administrator/IT Support Practichem W:919-714-8428
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:49:59 -0500 Mark Haney mhaney@practichem.com wrote:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445569.html ___ Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Mark Haney mhaney@practichem.com wrote:
My question is, WTF happened? My system is pretty clean. I never install packages by hand, only by either the standard Fedora repos or RPMFusion. These were all Fedora repo updates, FWIW. Did anyone else see this?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445554.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445555.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 1/17/2014 10:55 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Mark Haney mhaney@practichem.com wrote:
My question is, WTF happened? My system is pretty clean. I never install packages by hand, only by either the standard Fedora repos or RPMFusion. These were all Fedora repo updates, FWIW. Did anyone else see this?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445554.html
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445555.html
Geez. NEITHER of the two replies I received were useful in any meaningful way. That's just lazy, people. If it hadn't been for Ian's just posted message, I'd still not know WTF was going on. And I'm seriously concerned about how an SELinux policy was released stable with this big a problem attached to it.
- -- Mark Haney Network Administrator/IT Support Practichem W:919-714-8428
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:46:26 -0500 Mark Haney mhaney@practichem.com wrote:
Geez. NEITHER of the two replies I received were useful in any meaningful way. That's just lazy, people. If it hadn't been for Ian's just posted message, I'd still not know WTF was going on.
It's called reading, this list is archived.
And
I'm seriously concerned about how an SELinux policy was released stable with this big a problem attached to it.
Did you help test it while in updates-testing? I didn't
___ Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:46:26 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
Hash: SHA1
On 1/17/2014 10:55 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Mark Haney mhaney@practichem.com wrote:
My question is, WTF happened? My system is pretty clean. I never install packages by hand, only by either the standard Fedora repos or RPMFusion. These were all Fedora repo updates, FWIW. Did anyone else see this?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445554.html
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445555.html
Geez. NEITHER of the two replies I received were useful in any meaningful way. That's just lazy, people. If it hadn't been for Ian's just posted message, I'd still not know WTF was going on. And I'm seriously concerned about how an SELinux policy was released stable with this big a problem attached to it.
Please don't be so negative. The linked messages explain the issue. Nothing can be done about it anymore, since the previous selinux-policy update ought to have been offered in the updates-testing repo for a longer time.
The fix is on its way into the updates repo already. Try this as long as you can still see https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-0870/selinux-policy-3.12... in updates-testing:
su - setenforce 0 yum clean expire-cache yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update selinux-policy* setenforce 1
On 01/17/2014 11:46 AM, Mark Haney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 1/17/2014 10:55 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Mark Haney mhaney@practichem.com wrote:
My question is, WTF happened? My system is pretty clean. I never install packages by hand, only by either the standard Fedora repos or RPMFusion. These were all Fedora repo updates, FWIW. Did anyone else see this?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445554.html
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/445555.html Geez. NEITHER of the two replies I received were useful in any meaningful way. That's just lazy, people. If it hadn't been for Ian's just posted message, I'd still not know WTF was going on. And I'm seriously concerned about how an SELinux policy was released stable with this big a problem attached to it.
Mark Haney Network Administrator/IT Support Practichem W:919-714-8428 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS2V5iAAoJEDgEuzPE0JQveIQIAOAZlSSpYrOVm6/xzZn0Y4NR zTHHj/Y2+0crzTLpqjg80IEDretliA5yE83cFSYi93tZbAZLbIt6xbhWZkIMJaCR /YGBVPOhzG+N0J4ez9F8qHUVFqF6MqzaOQdj9cmX6ZnxehKKtRyl1yMQadnRtiLm MHElEK1SLF88L9bOY+iRgzY6MZr1KVp4HZHDQeC5MPkF0pKh8yD8qfjHHpIzmhAO lxZ6Pcd+R00zuFkp069NkdyXfius18IHnW6aZWg8zzTeHtc9lkVV83eLSziy8434 hNfRkFGby6ozp9oWiedcT9KlZxVaa3ygXG6v4MFnxgw2+leV+jo7fji7D3C8+K4= =SH0Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'm just glad they're aware of it! I just upgraded my friend from F-19 to F-20......it went without a hitch....but I have yet to do the usual process of updating it....so hopefully by the time I do get to it...(sometime Tuesday evening!) it will go also without a hitch!
EGO II