Re: F20 Installs Fail From Every Angle
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Brian Hanks bha...@bhanks.net wrote: 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. See the related issues section: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-December/193288.html From that section: Post-release reports also make it clear that fedup will abort if GPG keys for *any* repository fedup finds available for the target release cannot be found. i.e., if you have RPM Fusion or another popular third party repository configured, it's quite likely your upgrade will fail, because third party repos didn't have the signing key issue lined up (not surprising if we couldn't even entirely manage it ourselves). We were not sufficiently aware of this behaviour before release, and did not communicate it very well. The underlying causes of this are much the same as the underlying causes of the main issue - the fedup which enabled GPG checking landing very late, inadequate/incorrect test procedures, and limited knowledge of the details of fedup operation outside a small group of people. -- 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
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
On Dec 30, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Brian Hanks bha...@bhanks.net wrote: 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: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#Upgrade_fails_if_.2Fvar_is_a_separate_partition Make sure /var is actually being mounted with the existing fedup boot option (even though it doesn't start the upgrade). The bug itself reports a case where failure to mount is not accounted for in the workaround. The problem stems from /var mounting late, so the upgrade process doesn't begin because the upgrade files are in /var. If the upgrade files are located elsewhere, the upgrade process can start, but /var must eventually be mounted in order for its filed to be upgraded. So a failed /var mount is different than delayed /var mount. Chris Murphy-- 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
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 08:51:01 -0600, Brian Hanks wrote: 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. Exactly. Taking away that F19 kernel (by replacing it with a F20 kernel) will break the dependency. In response I removed kmod-VirtualBox, akmod-VirtualBox, and VirtualBox. 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. -- 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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/30/2013 3:08 PM, Brian Hanks wrote: 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. I had this same issue. For me, I just removed those repos then added them back in after the upgrade. I have very little from the RPMFusion repo so it didn't mess up my system to leave the F19 packages on their until I finished the upgrade and reinstalled the repo RPMs. Everything worked fine after that. - -- 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/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSwdXwAAoJEDgEuzPE0JQvtCkIAMLS/CU2CsdP7Rnc+0W/0XpL smmNxGaO9jiiBtwIAR4LGbxXDbI+Ceo8HmACDvZ1XtePOeM7JsEc98wvIuUP2jpB TiZisi6frugUysaN19HiiMTDwx7bs0BBnOeL7In5J81Xn/uG2cXlHy6H4h75/dh1 J4i/pDJ42gyT4UjWgDO7CgTADrcDOGJIYdzaes+iGBXldyz3Y/GEgdsEK2Scdjep 4TF3q2ecNOxYqla+GMaL/U83xNqx1XTF3V/Mu3XkEQ+GBJ9pENz9KmWGAvnDZ9j/ sVNhwLu48Mtjr37RV8TbQjh3sYUF0V+F/FeTNh+vjLGvyrjDbW+QvJITtd87sYQ= =ibFc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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)
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 (Michael Schwendt)
Hi On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Brian Hanks wrote: 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. 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 Rahul -- 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
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
Re: F20 Installs Fail From Every Angle (Michael Schwendt)
On Dec 29, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Brian Hanks bha...@bhanks.net wrote: 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. 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. Chris Murphy-- 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
On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:57:11 -0600, Brian Hanks wrote: 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. If you have any insight that will help complete one of the above failed installations, please let me know. 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. -- 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
