Re: Spectacular F24 to F25 dnf Upgrade Failure

[Brian Hanks]

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 14:10:43 -0700
From: stan 
Subject: Re: Spectacular F24 to F25 dnf Upgrade Failure
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Message-ID: <20170121141043.3a363...@vfemail.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


What was the command you used to do the upgrade?  Is there anything
unusual about your installation?
I used 'dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=25' follow by 'dnf 
system-upgrade reboot'.  Nothing terribly unusual.  Typical dual boot 
Win10 & Fedora on a 3 year old HP Envy 15t laptop with two SSDs.




Does windows still boot properly?

Yes, Win10 still running fine.


You should open a bugzilla against dnf to document your experiences
and allow the potential to get this fixed for the future.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
Agreed.  Unfortunately, I didn't save enough detail before moving on.  I 
will try to recreate and capture what I need.



Whew, that's a bad experience.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to help you, but there are some experts
on the list, so maybe they'll be able to help you recover.

It is because of potential experiences like yours that I always do my
upgrades to new versions while leaving my old version intact.  You
could just create the new partitions, and rsync your old version to the
new partitions before doing the upgrade.  Then, if disaster strikes,
you have a fallback position of a working system.
I usually use this laptop as my test machine.  If it works here, then 
I'll run it on my other Fedora machines.  For my main workstation, 
that's always done with a very cautious approach.


Maybe it's just me but I tend to have more issues with the odd numbered 
releases.  Call my superstitious.


Anyway, last night I did a full re-install over this mess with a F25 net 
install USB image and that failed as well.  With this latest attempt I 
deleted and recreated all partitions except for the shared efi 
partition.  I used a basic ext4 partitioning scheme (/boot; /boot/efi; 
/; swap).  It seemed like the install was going well but on reboot it 
failed.  From the logs, it appears the new grub config written by the 
installer is looking for a device UUID that doesn't exist.


Maybe I should clear out the /boot/efi/EFI/fedora directory before 
re-install?


This morning I ran one additional test.  I did a fresh install from a 
F25 XFCE Live USB. This was successful, but it leaves me with a ton of 
reconfiguration and restoration work.  Once I get everything up and 
running again I will do some additional tests with the F25 net installer 
to see if I can accurately document what happened.



-Brian
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Spectacular F24 to F25 dnf Upgrade Failure

[Brian Hanks]

  
  
I decided to do a dnf upgrade of my F24 install on my HP Envy 15t
laptop (dual boot).  I've done at least two successful dnf upgrades
on this laptop in the past with only minor annoyances, but this one
is a complete bust.

On boot I'm getting an ACPI Error stating something about a
"Namespace Lookup faillure" and a "Method parse execution failed". 
Then it goes on to point at a log file in
/run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt which essentially repeats the same
messages I mentioned before, but then also mentions an issue with
the /dev/sda10 superblock time.  That's followed by an fsck run
which fails with an error code 4.  

At this point I booted into a Fedora Live distro and ran "fdisk -l"
to find that all of my Linux partitions are showing as type
"Microsoft basic data".  Then and I started GParted which complained
about the "Physical block size is 2048 bytes, but Linux says it is
512 bytes."  And finally, my Linux /boot partition is showing within
GParted as type FAT16.  

Wow, I don't even know where to start.  If you have any thoughts,
please let me know.  Otherwise, I'll have to do a fresh install over
the top of this mess.



Thanks,
-Brian
  



___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Blank Desktop (KDE, Xfce, Gnome) After SELinux Change

[Brian Hanks]

I'm hoping that someone has experienced something similar to this and 
can help point me in the correct direction.  I was getting %posttrans 
errors and yum was hanging during kernel updates.  I read several posts 
and also found some articles via Google search that suggested that 
changing SELinux to Permissive would fix the problem, so I made the 
change in both /etc/selinux/config and in the SELinux admin tool.  I 
rebooted and found that I had a blank Xfce desktop, so I switched to KDE 
which was also blank, so I switched to Gnome which was also blank.


Applications still function in Xfce, but the desktop environment is 
blank.  KDE and Gnome are more broken, so they are not that functional.


The good news is that I was able to update the kernel without getting 
the errors.  The bad news is that even after changing SELinux back to 
the previous settings the desktop is still blank. I've also tried to 
completely disable SELinux, but it's still blank.


Let me know if you have any thoughts or solutions.


Thanks,
Brian
--
users mailing list
users@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

F19 Kernel Upgrade/Install Failure - kernel-3.13.5-103.fc19.x86_64

[Brian Hanks]

I'm again having issues installing a kernel upgrade for my F19 system.  
I've actually seen this several times in recent months on both my F19 
and F20 systems.  The RPM script seems to fail on the mkinitrd portion.


The rpm transaction hangs.  After a long wait, I kill it and get the 
following error:


mkinitrd failed
warning: %posttrans(kernel-3.13.5-103.fc19.x86_64) scriptlet failed, 
exit status 1
Non-fatal POSTTRANS scriptlet failure in rpm package 
kernel-3.13.5-103.fc19.x86_64


Has anyone else seen this?  Any idea why suddenly after all of these 
years kernel upgrades aren't reliable?



Thanks,
Brian
--
users mailing list
users@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

F20 - Can't Select Desktop Environment at Login

[Brian Hanks]

I've had quite a challenge getting Fedora 20 to work on any of my 
machines, but I have finally managed to work through the issues and I 
have it running on two of them.  The problem I'm having now is that I am 
not able to select the Desktop Environment at Login.  In the past, I 
have always installed a particular environment, usually Gnome or Xfce, 
then added others via yum after the initial install was complete.  This 
act of adding the second Desktop environment automatically caused a 
tweak to Login Badge where I was able to select the desired desktop as 
part of the login.


This did not happen this time.  After extensive Google searching, I've 
been unable to determine how to correct this, so I'm hoping someone can 
point me in the correct direction.



Thanks in advance,
Brian Hanks
--
users mailing list
users@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

Re: F20 Installs Fail From Every Angle

[Brian Hanks]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 22:47:07 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
  


You chose the fedup option in GRUB, but instead of getting text status of 
the progessing update, you got what appeared to be normal F19 boot?

If /var is a separate partition/LV instead of on rootfs, this behavior 
occurs. Please post your fstab if unsure. Do you have any encrypted partitions 
or volumes? Please post the result of lsblk if yes.



I do not have any encrypted partitions, but /var is definitely separate:

/dev/sda3/boot
/dev/sda5/
/dev/sda6/home
/dev/sda7/var


Thanks,
Brian
-- 
users mailing list
users@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

Re: F20 Installs Fail From Every Angle

[Brian Hanks]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:47:30 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:


So, there are no repos that offer updates for those three packages?
Or is fedup unable to handle 3rd party repos?

Other than that, please don't add my name to the mail's subject line
in such a misleading/ambiguous way. Thank you.


My apologies for leaving your name in the Subject line.  It was a copy 
paste error that has been perpetuated as others have replied.


The RPMFusion repos do have the proper VirtualBox packages, so it seems 
that fedup is not looking at the 3rd party repos that I have configured.


Interestingly, I found this on the Fedora FedUp Wiki page:

   *Will packages in third party repositories be upgraded?*

   Yes, if they are set up like regular yum repositories and do not
   hard code the repository path. Commonly-used third party
   repositories usually work fine, but if you attempt to upgrade prior
   to or soon after an official Fedora release, they may not have
   updated their repository paths yet, and FedUp may be unable to find
   their packages. This will usually not prevent the upgrade running
   successfully, though, and you can update the packages from the
   third-party repository later.


After reading this, I checked my RPMFusion repos and found that none are 
hard-coded.  All are using the $releasever variable, and all resolve to 
valid repos with the proper packages available.  My assumption is that 
something isn't working as described.



Brian

-- 
users mailing list
users@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

Re: F20 Installs Fail From Every Angle (Michael Schwendt)

[Brian Hanks]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 23:56:30 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:


What dependency error did it report?
And how did you query the installed packages as well as the remote
repos for what would be available_after_  the upgrade?

Many users still misread such error messages and don't manage to work
around them as a result. Often, the installed packages are okay, but
during they upgrade they would get replaced and break dependencies.


The exact error message was WARNING: problems were encountered during 
transaction test:
broken dependencies
kmod-VirtualBox-3.12.5-200.fc19.x86_64-4.3.6-1.fc19.1.x86_64 requires 
kernel-3.12.5-200.fc19.x86_64
Continue with upgrade at your own risk.

In response I removed kmod-VirtualBox, akmod-VirtualBox, and VirtualBox.  Then 
I did a fedup --clean and reattempted fedup --network 20.  This went well until 
the reboot.  Following the reboot I select the Fedup option, but nothing really 
happened.  I ended up back in my Fedora 19 system while running the new Fedora 
20 kernel.

As an update on the other machine where I was having problems with the net 
install.  I checked for any meaningful logs but found that none exist.  The 
/var/log directory hasn't even been created.  So, then I tried to run a 
grub2-mkconfig, grub2-install, dracut series to potentially fix the problem.  
The file sizes did change a bit, but the end result was the same.


Brian  

-- 
users mailing list
users@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

Re: F20 Installs Fail From Every Angle

[Brian Hanks]

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:


Which version of fedup?  Make sure you have the latest

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#Why_does_my_upgrade_to_Fedora_20_fail_.28immediately_reboot_to_my_old_Fedora.29.3F


I read this before I made my first attempt and I validated that I am using 
latest version of fedup (fedup-0.8.0-3.fc19.noarch).


Brian

--
users mailing list
users@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

F20 Installs Fail From Every Angle

[Brian Hanks]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but it seems to me that Fedora is becoming 
less and less stable with each release.  I've just tried repeatedly to 
install Fedora 20 using a myriad of different methods over three 
different machines.  Not a single attempt was successful.


I've been using RedHat/Fedora since version 1.1 back in 1995 and I don't 
think I've ever been as frustrated by the installation process as I am 
now.  It seems to me that the old installer was much more stable and 
capable of dealing with complicated installation scenarios.  With each 
release I hope for improvements to the installation process, but I am 
repeatedly disappointed.


Here's what I've tried so far and the outcome of each attempt:

1.  Fedup Upgrade of two different HP laptops each currently with Fedora 
19 and simple partitioning (ext4 only).  I've attempted this upgrade 
multiple times on each machine.  It fails every time with a VirtualBox 
dependency error.  When I check the dependency issue that is reported I 
find that all of the packages are actually installed. Ignoring the error 
does not work either as the upgrade does not succeed.


2.  DVD/USB install (64-bit F20 DVD ISO) of an older custom desktop 
(Intel E6550 chip) currently with Fedora 19 and complex partitioning 
(LVM  RAID 1).  I've tried four times to do this install from DVD/USB.  
Each time the installation has terminated with an unexpected error.  
Twice this happened early in the installation process and twice when 
attempting to install the boot loader.  In all four cases, I used 
BugZilla from within the installer to report the issue.  In all four 
cases it indicated that there was an open bug for the issue.


3.  Net install (64-bit F20 boot.iso) of an older custom desktop (Intel 
E6550 chip) currently with Fedora 19 and complex partitioning (LVM  
RAID 1).  I managed to successfully  get through the entire installation 
process and reboot the machine only to be greeted with the dreaded 
Welcome to emergency mode.  message on my screen.


I fully admit that I am not participating in the pre-release testing to 
the degree that I did in the past, so I guess I shouldn't complain.  
That said, it just seems like the installation process should be a lot 
more stable than what I have experienced.  If it were, there would 
likely be a lot more Fedora users out there.


If you have any insight that will help complete one of the above failed 
installations, please let me know.



Thanks,
Brian

--
users mailing list
users@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

Re: Loading smbd. (Paolo De Michele)

[Brian Hanks]

 Hi,

 Ref: 3.1.6-1.fc16.x86_64

 What is the right way of always loading SMBD at startup.

 Thanks,


 hi Lucélio,

 the correct command is: chkconfig smb on
 this allows you to start at boot the samba daemon


Actually, since the reference is to Fedora 16, you'll need to use
systemctl instead of chkconfig.  You might also want to start nmb
depending upon your usage.  A combined set of commands to enable and
start both services would look like this:

systemctl enable smb.service nmb.service
systemctl start smb.service nmb.service

A great reference can be found at the following link:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SysVinit_to_Systemd_Cheatsheet


Regards,
Brian

-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Loading smbd.

[Brian Hanks]

Hi,

Ref: 3.1.6-1.fc16.x86_64

What is the right way of always loading SMBD at startup.

Thanks,


hi Lucélio,

the correct command is: chkconfig smb on
this allows you to start at boot the samba daemon



Actually, since the reference is to Fedora 16, you'll need to use 
systemctl instead of chkconfig.  You might also want to start nmb 
depending upon your usage.  A combined set of commands to enable and 
start both services would look like this:


systemctl enable smb.service nmb.service
systemctl start smb.service nmb.service

A great reference can be found at the following link:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SysVinit_to_Systemd_Cheatsheet


Regards,
Brian

-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: F16 - Converting to RAID1

[Brian Hanks]

Many thanks for the suggestions and validation.  I modified my process 
steps per the suggestions and I just executed all of the steps.  It 
worked flawlessly.


Thanks again,
-Brian
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

F16 - Converting to RAID1

[Brian Hanks]

OK, I'm a long-time RedHat/Fedora user, but some of the recent changes
(grub2, systemd, hal, etc.) are modifying or deprecating my tried and
true methods.   The latest issue I've got is that I want to add a second
drive in a RAID1 config for my main data partitions.   This is something
I had planned all along and thought it wouldn't be a big deal.  I've
done it countless times before.   I've even got much of the work already
done.  There are just a few pieces that have changed and I want to make
sure I get it right the first time.

I recently built a new main machine for my home office.  It plays many
roles including that of main Fedora workstation as well as main Fedora
server.   I primarily use this machine to provide server functions but
do use it for things like photo/movie/mp3 processing, Amarok, GIMP,
etc.  I built it right before Christmas with an SSD for everything
except for {swap}, /var, and /data, which is on a separate 2TB drive. 
When originally built it only used one data drive because HDD prices
were high.  A few weeks later I picked up a matching drive on special. 
It's installed, has partitioned, RAIDed (degraded), formatted, and it
contains a copy of the data.   The problem is I'm not 100% sure what I
need to do to get this thing converted over for the reboot.  

The drives are /dev/sda (SSD), /dev/sdb (existing data drive with ext4
partitions), /dev/sdc (new data drive).  Here's what I was planning to do:
1.  Umount the two RAID devices with a current copy of data.
2.  Edit /etc/fstab replacing Device IDs with new RAID devices
(UUID= becomes /dev/md?)
3.  Make backup of /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
4.  Make backup of /boot/initramfs-$(uname -r).x86_64.img
5.  dracut --force initramfs-$(uname -r).img $(uname -r)
6.  grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
7.  I don't think I need to install grub2 on the new drive because
that's already on the SSD primary drive.
8.  Do I need to remove the rd.md=0 from /etc/default/grub?  Or will
grub-2-mkconfig fix this?
9.  Reboot and hope it starts with the new RAID devices (did I mention
that /var is on this disk as well?)
10.  Modify partition types of /dev/sdb to fd (linux raid autodetect)
11.  Add /dev/sdb to the RAID1 arrays and let them sync (mdadm --add
/dev/md? /dev/sdc?)


I would appreciate any advice.


Thanks,
-Brian
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

HP dm3t Laptop Brightness Adjustment

[Brian Hanks]

I recently got a new laptop, an HP dm3t (Core i3-380UM+Intel HD 
Graphics).  It's a great machine except that I am not able to adjust the 
screen brightness in Fedora 14 x86_64.   The Fn keys are recognized, the 
brightness pop-up indicates that an adjustment has been requested, but 
the screen remains on the brightest setting.   I've also validated the 
brightness values in /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0 are being 
adjusted.  It just seems that they aren't being recognized.

I've tried to pass the following acpi kernel params, but the attempts 
have failed, causing the Fn keys and adjustments to stop working:
acpi_osi=Linux
acpi_backlight=vendor

Any thoughts on what I should try next?

Thanks,
-Brian



-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines