Re: DNF and broken upgrades

[Russel Winder]

On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 14:21 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 06:16:43PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> > > I think `dnf distro-sync` should do it.
> > 
> > I tried that but can't remember the exact output. It didn't do
> > anything
> > positive though. :-(
> 
> Maybe with --best and --allow-erasing?

Just as closure for this thread: over the past few days I have had to
do some erasing to get a best install build and the problem seems to
have gone away. I have no concrete data as to what actually cleared the
problem but it has gone away. :-)

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DNF and broken upgrades

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 06:16:43PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> > I think `dnf distro-sync` should do it.
> I tried that but can't remember the exact output. It didn't do anything
> positive though. :-(

Maybe with --best and --allow-erasing?


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DNF and broken upgrades

[Russel Winder]

On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 07:49 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 
[…]
> I think `dnf distro-sync` should do it.

I tried that but can't remember the exact output. It didn't do anything
positive though. :-(

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DNF and broken upgrades

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 10:33:49AM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> If there are one or two I remove the newest version manually and then
> do the upgrade again. For 835 I am not about to even start this
> process. "dnf remove --duplicates" refused to work because some of the
> duplicates were protected. dnf and systemd in particular. OK so I can
> handle doing those manually using the "--setopt=protected_package="
> options so as to be able to remove the newest version. So dnf and
> systemd fully up to date.

I think this is a bug. The protected-packages thing shouldn't block
dupes from being removed, just make sure there's at least one
functional package (of the primary architecture!).


> I am thinking that "dnf remove --duplicates" isn't actually the right
> way of fixing this sort of problem, that there is a better way of
> handling barfed upgrades.


I think `dnf distro-sync` should do it.



-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

DNF and broken upgrades

[Russel Winder]

I have just completed the recent Big Rawhide Upgrade on my
laptops/workstations. I will admit to not using the lowest risk way of
upgrading mostly because I don't want to have to work with each machine
physically individually. I generally use an SSH login from another
machine to keep the risk at Bash and Network Manager upgrade problems.
This morning I got lazy (having upgraded the laptops using the normal
approach) and upgraded my workstation from a terminal in an Wayland
session on the workstation itself. Normally this is OK, today it
failed.

Part way through the "dnf upgrade", the terminal crashed, leaving me
with masses of downloaded and installed but not yet upgraded packages.
So I ended up with what dnf said was a fully upgraded machines and yet
there were 835 duplicates, as reported by "dnf check".

If there are one or two I remove the newest version manually and then
do the upgrade again. For 835 I am not about to even start this
process. "dnf remove --duplicates" refused to work because some of the
duplicates were protected. dnf and systemd in particular. OK so I can
handle doing those manually using the "--setopt=protected_package="
options so as to be able to remove the newest version. So dnf and
systemd fully up to date.

Now "dnf remove --duplicates" works – which is good. :-) However,…

The "dnf list --installed" listing shows all the new packages from
@System not from @rawhide. I am hoping this doesn't matter, but it is
annoying. This is not the case for the package removed and re-upgraded
manually, just for the ones 'fixed' using "dnf remove --duplicates".

I am thinking that "dnf remove --duplicates" isn't actually the right
way of fixing this sort of problem, that there is a better way of
handling barfed upgrades.

I also notice that "dnf list --showduplicates" highlights a lot of
entries but there is no clear indication of what the problem is.
 
-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org