Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-14 Thread Jon LaBadie 

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 09:07:49AM +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:

On 13/11/24 14:38, Tim wrote:


If you can't see any tangible differences between old and new
configuration files, then there's a reasonable argument to switch over
to the new one, so it's the version designed to go with the current
version of whatever program it configures.


Sure, but if I have never touched the config file and the comparison
identifies differences how am I supposed to know whether or not the
changes are going to be detrimental to my system, particularly if I have
no idea what the changes mean or do?


So, you either never looked at the file, just accepted it,
our you read it and decided it looked OK; perhaps not
understanding some things.  Again trusting the developer(s).

Why change now?  Install the new config file.

--
Jon H. LaBadie  jo...@jgcomp.com
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-13 Thread Stephen Morris 

On 13/11/24 14:38, Tim wrote:

Patrick O'Callaghan:

Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?

Stephen Morris:

Traditionally no, I have never understood the functionality involved
with those when creating an rpmsave or rpmnew, when those files are
created relative to config files that I have never updated. Apart
from that, if I have never updated the config file or never even
looked at the config file, how am I supposed to know which version
should be kept?


If you had changed a configuration file, it would keep that, and you'd
either compare it with the new one and see if you you wanted to keep
your changes and merge them into the new one, keep your old config, or
swap over to the new one.

If you hadn't customised your configuration file, it's kind of the
same.  You'd compare the old versus new, see if the new one would
change the way things behaved, decide whether you're happy with that,
or wanted things to carry on as before.  Then, stick with the old,
switch to the new, or merge the old settings into the new one.

If you can't see any tangible differences between old and new
configuration files, then there's a reasonable argument to switch over
to the new one, so it's the version designed to go with the current
version of whatever program it configures.
Sure, but if I have never touched the config file and the comparison 
identifies differences how am I supposed to know whether or not the 
changes are going to be detrimental to my system, particularly if I have 
no idea what the changes mean or do?


regards,
Steve

  




OpenPGP_0x1EBE7C07B0F7242C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-13 Thread Stephen Morris 

On 13/11/24 09:31, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Wed, 2024-11-13 at 08:20 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:

Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?

Traditionally no, I have never understood the functionality involved
with those when creating an rpmsave or rpmnew, when those files are
created relative to config files that I have never updated. Apart from
that, if I have never updated the config file or never even looked at
the config file, how am I supposed to know which version should be kept?

I only ever see .rpmnew versions for config files I have edited.
I have seen these get created for things like the Java configs which I 
have never touched.


regards,
Steve



poc




OpenPGP_0x1EBE7C07B0F7242C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-13 Thread ToddAndMargo via users 

On 11/11/24 13:59, Stephen Morris wrote:
did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system, so 
I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299 packages,



I did that on one machine.  NEVER AGAIN!  I had to
reinstall 3/4 of my applications.
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-12 Thread Tim via users 
Patrick O'Callaghan:
>> Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?

Stephen Morris:
> Traditionally no, I have never understood the functionality involved
> with those when creating an rpmsave or rpmnew, when those files are
> created relative to config files that I have never updated. Apart
> from that, if I have never updated the config file or never even
> looked at the config file, how am I supposed to know which version
> should be kept?


If you had changed a configuration file, it would keep that, and you'd
either compare it with the new one and see if you you wanted to keep
your changes and merge them into the new one, keep your old config, or 
swap over to the new one.

If you hadn't customised your configuration file, it's kind of the
same.  You'd compare the old versus new, see if the new one would
change the way things behaved, decide whether you're happy with that,
or wanted things to carry on as before.  Then, stick with the old,
switch to the new, or merge the old settings into the new one.

If you can't see any tangible differences between old and new
configuration files, then there's a reasonable argument to switch over
to the new one, so it's the version designed to go with the current
version of whatever program it configures.
 
-- 
 
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.119.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 4 14:43:51 UTC 2024 x86_64
 
Boilerplate:  All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
 

-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-12 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan 
On Wed, 2024-11-13 at 08:20 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> > Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?
> Traditionally no, I have never understood the functionality involved 
> with those when creating an rpmsave or rpmnew, when those files are 
> created relative to config files that I have never updated. Apart from 
> that, if I have never updated the config file or never even looked at 
> the config file, how am I supposed to know which version should be kept?

I only ever see .rpmnew versions for config files I have edited.

poc
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-12 Thread Stephen Morris 

On 12/11/24 09:47, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:04 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 11/11/24 1:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

Am I doing something wrong then when I did not have to do any cleanup
for the system to be in this state?
As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done
any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw
references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they
existed to even go looking for them.
I did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system,
so I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299
packages, some of which look to be old from their names, but how do I
know whether they are actually redundant or whether I am using something
from them. For example, it wants to remove package f36-backgrounds-
gnome, how do I know whether I am using a background from that package
hence should not be removed?

I have never done any of those post-install processes.

Out of morbid curiosity, what does the output of this command look like?

sudo symlinks -r / | grep dangling
On my system there are a mountain of dangling symlinks which I don't 
know whether they should be there or not. I did run a post-install 
cleanup of dangling symlinks as specified in the documentation, but how 
do I know whether that process is going to delete the dangling symlink 
or convert it into a hard file (the removal or dangling symlinks for 
/usr did both). But there are also some dangling symlinks for Windows 
fonts in the Windows drive C font folder created by Wine, why are they 
dangling?


regards,
Steve



Jeff




OpenPGP_0x1EBE7C07B0F7242C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-12 Thread Stephen Morris 

On 12/11/24 09:37, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 14:04 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 11/11/24 1:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

Am I doing something wrong then when I did not have to do any cleanup
for the system to be in this state?
As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done
any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw
references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they
existed to even go looking for them.
I did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system,
so I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299
packages, some of which look to be old from their names, but how do I
know whether they are actually redundant or whether I am using something
from them. For example, it wants to remove package f36-backgrounds-
gnome, how do I know whether I am using a background from that package
hence should not be removed?

I have never done any of those post-install processes.


Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?
Traditionally no, I have never understood the functionality involved 
with those when creating an rpmsave or rpmnew, when those files are 
created relative to config files that I have never updated. Apart from 
that, if I have never updated the config file or never even looked at 
the config file, how am I supposed to know which version should be kept?


regards,
Steve



poc




OpenPGP_0x1EBE7C07B0F7242C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-12 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan 
On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 23:18 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Generally speaking, I've learned to supply my changes in the
> .d/ directory so I can answer 'Y' to everything rpmconf
> prompts about.

Not everything has a .d/ directory, e.g. I have some mods to
the dnsmasq config which are applied directly in /etc/dnsmasq.conf.
Another example is /etc/httpd/conf.d/ssl.conf.

poc
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Jeffrey Walton 
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:07 PM Tim via users
 wrote:
>
> Samuel Sieb:
> > > I have never done any of those post-install processes.
>
> Patrick O'Callaghan:
> > Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?
>
> Some people never customise their configurations, so even that probably
> shouldn't be a concern for them.  Ordinarily, I'd say you shouldn't get
> rpmnew and rpmold config files if yours were the originally written
> ones.  Though, I think you *may* still get them if there was some major
> change by an update that they thought warranted user confirmation
> rather than simply replacing it automatically.

I think you are right about the prompt.

I install java for regression testing. Sometimes it is the JRE, and
sometimes it is the JDK. After dnf-system-upgrades, rpmconf prompted
me on Java configuration files. I did not customize Java at all, and
it surprised me I was being asked to pick between the maintainer's
version (new) and current version (old).

Generally speaking, I've learned to supply my changes in the
.d/ directory so I can answer 'Y' to everything rpmconf
prompts about.

Jeff
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Tim via users 
Samuel Sieb:
> > I have never done any of those post-install processes.

Patrick O'Callaghan:
> Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?
> 

Some people never customise their configurations, so even that probably
shouldn't be a concern for them.  Ordinarily, I'd say you shouldn't get
rpmnew and rpmold config files if yours were the originally written
ones.  Though, I think you *may* still get them if there was some major
change by an update that they thought warranted user confirmation
rather than simply replacing it automatically.

 
-- 
 
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.119.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 4 14:43:51 UTC 2024 x86_64
 
Boilerplate:  All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
 

-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Samuel Sieb 

On 11/11/24 2:47 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:04 PM Samuel Sieb  wrote:


On 11/11/24 1:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

Am I doing something wrong then when I did not have to do any cleanup
for the system to be in this state?
As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done
any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw
references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they
existed to even go looking for them.
I did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system,
so I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299
packages, some of which look to be old from their names, but how do I
know whether they are actually redundant or whether I am using something
from them. For example, it wants to remove package f36-backgrounds-
gnome, how do I know whether I am using a background from that package
hence should not be removed?


I have never done any of those post-install processes.


Out of morbid curiosity, what does the output of this command look like?

sudo symlinks -r / | grep dangling


# symlinks -r / | grep dangling | wc -l134

And other than the one in /root/.config, they are all owned by packages.

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Jeffrey Walton 
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:04 PM Samuel Sieb  wrote:
>
> On 11/11/24 1:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> > Am I doing something wrong then when I did not have to do any cleanup
> > for the system to be in this state?
> > As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done
> > any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw
> > references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they
> > existed to even go looking for them.
> > I did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system,
> > so I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299
> > packages, some of which look to be old from their names, but how do I
> > know whether they are actually redundant or whether I am using something
> > from them. For example, it wants to remove package f36-backgrounds-
> > gnome, how do I know whether I am using a background from that package
> > hence should not be removed?
>
> I have never done any of those post-install processes.

Out of morbid curiosity, what does the output of this command look like?

   sudo symlinks -r / | grep dangling

Jeff
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Samuel Sieb 

On 11/11/24 2:37 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 14:04 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 11/11/24 1:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

Am I doing something wrong then when I did not have to do any cleanup
for the system to be in this state?
As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done
any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw
references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they
existed to even go looking for them.
I did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system,
so I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299
packages, some of which look to be old from their names, but how do I
know whether they are actually redundant or whether I am using something
from them. For example, it wants to remove package f36-backgrounds-
gnome, how do I know whether I am using a background from that package
hence should not be removed?


I have never done any of those post-install processes.


Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?


No.  That's one that might be worthwhile to do, but I generally only 
look for those if I notice it or something isn't working.


--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan 
On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 14:04 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 11/11/24 1:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> > Am I doing something wrong then when I did not have to do any cleanup 
> > for the system to be in this state?
> > As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done 
> > any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw 
> > references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they 
> > existed to even go looking for them.
> > I did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system, 
> > so I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299 
> > packages, some of which look to be old from their names, but how do I 
> > know whether they are actually redundant or whether I am using something 
> > from them. For example, it wants to remove package f36-backgrounds- 
> > gnome, how do I know whether I am using a background from that package 
> > hence should not be removed?
> 
> I have never done any of those post-install processes.
> 
Not even 'rpmconf' to merge .rpmnew files?

poc
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Go Canes 
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:04 PM Samuel Sieb  wrote:
>
> On 11/11/24 1:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> > As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done
> > any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw
> > references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they
> > existed to even go looking for them.


> I have never done any of those post-install processes.

FWIW, I do the following:
dnf repoquery --unsatisfied
dnf repoquery --duplicates
dnf list extras

The first 2 should display no packages.  The 3rd requires manual curation.

I did "dnf autoremove" once.  Never again.  I might issue the command
to see the list, and then manually curate, but one disaster was
enough.
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Samuel Sieb 

On 11/11/24 1:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
Am I doing something wrong then when I did not have to do any cleanup 
for the system to be in this state?
As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done 
any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw 
references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they 
existed to even go looking for them.
I did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system, 
so I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299 
packages, some of which look to be old from their names, but how do I 
know whether they are actually redundant or whether I am using something 
from them. For example, it wants to remove package f36-backgrounds- 
gnome, how do I know whether I am using a background from that package 
hence should not be removed?


I have never done any of those post-install processes.

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-11 Thread Stephen Morris 

On 11/11/24 11:01, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

On 11/10/24 13:46, Stephen Morris wrote:

Note: dnf dose not use /etc/redhat-release as it release
version.  It uses
   /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
On my F41 system upgraded from F40, it is using /etc/redhat-release 
to store its release version which for me contains Fedora release 41 
(Forty One)
  and /usr/share/fedora/fedora-release-common contains nothing but a 
legal txt file and a license file, there is no fedora sub-folder of 
licenses.

Command "rpm -qa /*fedora-release-common/*" produces nothing.



After I got it all cleaned up, I did not have them either.
Am I doing something wrong then when I did not have to do any cleanup 
for the system to be in this state?
As a side issue, I might be treading on thin ice here, I have never done 
any of the post-install processes on any version of Fedora. Until I saw 
references to them in this list when I was on F39, I didn't know they 
existed to even go looking for them.
I did one try dnf autoremove and that wanted to remove half my system, 
so I abandoned that process, and issuing it now wants to remove 299 
packages, some of which look to be old from their names, but how do I 
know whether they are actually redundant or whether I am using something 
from them. For example, it wants to remove package 
f36-backgrounds-gnome, how do I know whether I am using a background 
from that package hence should not be removed?


regards,
Steve




OpenPGP_0x1EBE7C07B0F7242C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread Samuel Sieb 

On 11/10/24 1:46 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

On 11/11/24 04:30, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

Hi All,

This happened to me again when I went to upgrade my
shop computer from FC40 to fc41.  So I though I'd repeat
my fix here:

Note: dnf dose not use /etc/redhat-release as it release
version.  It uses
   /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
On my F41 system upgraded from F40, it is using /etc/redhat-release to 
store its release version which for me contains Fedora release 41 (Forty 
One)
  and /usr/share/fedora/fedora-release-common contains nothing but a 
legal txt file and a license file, there is no fedora sub-folder of 
licenses.

Command "rpm -qa /*fedora-release-common/*" produces nothing.

regards,
Steve


-T

When dnf thinks you are on the wrong release:

  if after the upgrade, dnf still thinks you are on the older version,
  remove the stray "fedora-release-common"
  For example:
  # rpm -qa \*fedora-release-common\*
  fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
  fedora-release-common-40-39.noarch
  # dnf remove fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
  or globally
  # dnf upgrade --allowerase --releasever=[your release, 
41 for example]


I don't think it's any file.  It's the version of the package that matters.

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users 

On 11/10/24 14:10, home user via users wrote:

It uses
    /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*


On my stand-alone home workstation, there's no such thing:



After I got it all cleaned up, I did not have them either.
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users 

On 11/10/24 13:46, Stephen Morris wrote:

Note: dnf dose not use /etc/redhat-release as it release
version.  It uses
   /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
On my F41 system upgraded from F40, it is using /etc/redhat-release to 
store its release version which for me contains Fedora release 41 (Forty 
One)
  and /usr/share/fedora/fedora-release-common contains nothing but a 
legal txt file and a license file, there is no fedora sub-folder of 
licenses.

Command "rpm -qa /*fedora-release-common/*" produces nothing.



After I got it all cleaned up, I did not have them either.
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users 

On 11/10/24 14:47, home user via users wrote:

Now hol-ol-ol-d your horses there.

I've been doing as suggested above for a few years now.


Me as well
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread home user via users 

On 11/10/24 12:14 PM, Charlie Dennett wrote:

When upgrading following the instructions at 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/ 
, 
make sure you perform the optional post upgrade tasks like Clean up retired packages, 
clean up old packages, clean up old keys, clean up old sym-links.  Doing that can 
reduce your chances of future problems.  I've been following those instructions for 
longer than I can remember and it's always worked for me.
[snip]


Now hol-ol-ol-d your horses there.

I've been doing as suggested above for a few years now.
Early on, I don't remember when or by whom, I was warned by someone on this 
list that the dangling sym-link clean-up was risky, though I'm not aware of it 
causing me any problems.
Last month, retired package clean-up "critically wounded" my stand-alone 
workstation.  It left me with console mode only.  It took a long and difficult thread 
plus patient, hard help in this list to get me back to the console login and some 
functionality.  There are still real problems, which I will post on this list when I have 
time.

I'm not suggesting not doing post-upgrade steps.  I'm saying be very careful!

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread home user via users 

On 11/10/24 3:24 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

On 11/11/24 09:10, home user via users wrote:

On 11/10/24 10:30 AM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

Hi All,

[snip]


On my stand-alone home workstation, that is a link to a link to 
/usr/lib/fedora-release:

-bash.1[~]: ls -l /etc/redhat-release
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 14 Apr 11  2024 /etc/redhat-release -> fedora-release
-bash.2[~]: ls /etc/fed*
/etc/fedora-release
-bash.3[~]: ls -l /etc/fed*
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 25 Apr 11  2024 /etc/fedora-release -> 
../usr/lib/fedora-release
-bash.4[~]: ls -l /usr/lib/fedora-release
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 26 Apr 11  2024 /usr/lib/fedora-release
-bash.5[~]: cat /usr/lib/fedora-release
Fedora release 40 (Forty)


  It uses
    /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*


On my stand-alone home workstation, there's no such thing:

-bash.6[~]: ls -l /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
ls: cannot access '/usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*': No such 
file or directory
-bash.7[~]:

There's not even a /usr/share/licenses/fedora directory:

-bash.7[~]: ls -l /usr/share/licenses/fed*
/usr/share/licenses/fedora-logos:
total 4
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1878 Feb 20  2023 COPYING

/usr/share/licenses/fedora-logos-classic:
total 4
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1878 Feb 20  2023 COPYING

/usr/share/licenses/fedora-release-common:
total 8
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1295 Apr 11  2024 Fedora-Legal-README.txt
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1063 Apr 11  2024 LICENSE
-bash.8[~]:


Yes, based on my F41 upgraded machine that has yet to have any of the 
post-install processes run, that is what I would expect and I would expect rpm 
-qa /*fedora-release-common/* to produce nothing? If this is what your 
stand-alone machine is producing then I would expect it to be fine?


I'm at f-40 starting about a month ago.

-bash.1[~]: rpm -qa /*fedora-release-common/*
-bash.2[~]:

I did run some post-install processes.  One "critically wounded" my 
workstation.  That's was addressed last month in a separate thread.  Others will be 
addressed in the future as time allows.

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread Stephen Morris 

On 11/11/24 09:10, home user via users wrote:

On 11/10/24 10:30 AM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

Hi All,

[snip]


On my stand-alone home workstation, that is a link to a link to 
/usr/lib/fedora-release:


-bash.1[~]: ls -l /etc/redhat-release
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 14 Apr 11  2024 /etc/redhat-release -> 
fedora-release

-bash.2[~]: ls /etc/fed*
/etc/fedora-release
-bash.3[~]: ls -l /etc/fed*
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 25 Apr 11  2024 /etc/fedora-release -> 
../usr/lib/fedora-release

-bash.4[~]: ls -l /usr/lib/fedora-release
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 26 Apr 11  2024 /usr/lib/fedora-release
-bash.5[~]: cat /usr/lib/fedora-release
Fedora release 40 (Forty)


  It uses
    /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*


On my stand-alone home workstation, there's no such thing:

-bash.6[~]: ls -l /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
ls: cannot access '/usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*': 
No such file or directory

-bash.7[~]:

There's not even a /usr/share/licenses/fedora directory:

-bash.7[~]: ls -l /usr/share/licenses/fed*
/usr/share/licenses/fedora-logos:
total 4
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1878 Feb 20  2023 COPYING

/usr/share/licenses/fedora-logos-classic:
total 4
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1878 Feb 20  2023 COPYING

/usr/share/licenses/fedora-release-common:
total 8
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1295 Apr 11  2024 Fedora-Legal-README.txt
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1063 Apr 11  2024 LICENSE
-bash.8[~]:

Yes, based on my F41 upgraded machine that has yet to have any of the 
post-install processes run, that is what I would expect and I would 
expect rpm -qa /*fedora-release-common/* to produce nothing? If this is 
what your stand-alone machine is producing then I would expect it to be 
fine?


regards,
Steve




OpenPGP_0x1EBE7C07B0F7242C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread home user via users 

On 11/10/24 10:30 AM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

Hi All,

[snip]


On my stand-alone home workstation, that is a link to a link to 
/usr/lib/fedora-release:

-bash.1[~]: ls -l /etc/redhat-release
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 14 Apr 11  2024 /etc/redhat-release -> fedora-release
-bash.2[~]: ls /etc/fed*
/etc/fedora-release
-bash.3[~]: ls -l /etc/fed*
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 25 Apr 11  2024 /etc/fedora-release -> 
../usr/lib/fedora-release
-bash.4[~]: ls -l /usr/lib/fedora-release
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 26 Apr 11  2024 /usr/lib/fedora-release
-bash.5[~]: cat /usr/lib/fedora-release
Fedora release 40 (Forty)


  It uses
    /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*


On my stand-alone home workstation, there's no such thing:

-bash.6[~]: ls -l /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
ls: cannot access '/usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*': No such 
file or directory
-bash.7[~]:

There's not even a /usr/share/licenses/fedora directory:

-bash.7[~]: ls -l /usr/share/licenses/fed*
/usr/share/licenses/fedora-logos:
total 4
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1878 Feb 20  2023 COPYING

/usr/share/licenses/fedora-logos-classic:
total 4
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1878 Feb 20  2023 COPYING

/usr/share/licenses/fedora-release-common:
total 8
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1295 Apr 11  2024 Fedora-Legal-README.txt
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1063 Apr 11  2024 LICENSE
-bash.8[~]:

--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread Stephen Morris 

On 11/11/24 08:46, Stephen Morris wrote:

On 11/11/24 04:30, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

Hi All,

This happened to me again when I went to upgrade my
shop computer from FC40 to fc41.  So I though I'd repeat
my fix here:

Note: dnf dose not use /etc/redhat-release as it release
version.  It uses
   /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
On my F41 system upgraded from F40, it is using /etc/redhat-release to 
store its release version which for me contains Fedora release 41 
(Forty One)
 and /usr/share/fedora/fedora-release-common contains nothing but a 
legal txt file and a license file, there is no fedora sub-folder of 
licenses.

* /usr/share/licenses/fedora-release-common

Command "rpm -qa /*fedora-release-common/*" produces nothing.

regards,
Steve


-T

When dnf thinks you are on the wrong release:

  if after the upgrade, dnf still thinks you are on the older version,
  remove the stray "fedora-release-common"
  For example:
  # rpm -qa \*fedora-release-common\*
  fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
  fedora-release-common-40-39.noarch
  # dnf remove fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
  or globally
  # dnf upgrade --allowerase --releasever=[your release, 
41 for example]








OpenPGP_0x1EBE7C07B0F7242C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread Stephen Morris 

On 11/11/24 04:30, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:

Hi All,

This happened to me again when I went to upgrade my
shop computer from FC40 to fc41.  So I though I'd repeat
my fix here:

Note: dnf dose not use /etc/redhat-release as it release
version.  It uses
   /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
On my F41 system upgraded from F40, it is using /etc/redhat-release to 
store its release version which for me contains Fedora release 41 (Forty 
One)
 and /usr/share/fedora/fedora-release-common contains nothing but a 
legal txt file and a license file, there is no fedora sub-folder of 
licenses.

Command "rpm -qa /*fedora-release-common/*" produces nothing.

regards,
Steve


-T

When dnf thinks you are on the wrong release:

  if after the upgrade, dnf still thinks you are on the older version,
  remove the stray "fedora-release-common"
  For example:
  # rpm -qa \*fedora-release-common\*
  fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
  fedora-release-common-40-39.noarch
  # dnf remove fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
  or globally
  # dnf upgrade --allowerase --releasever=[your release, 
41 for example]






OpenPGP_0x1EBE7C07B0F7242C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread Jeffrey Walton 
On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 2:15 PM Charlie Dennett  wrote:
>
> When upgrading following the instructions at 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/, 
> make sure you perform the optional post upgrade tasks like Clean up retired 
> packages, clean up old packages, clean up old keys, clean up old sym-links.  
> Doing that can reduce your chances of future problems.  I've been following 
> those instructions for longer than I can remember and it's always worked for 
> me.

Hear, hear!
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread Charlie Dennett 
When upgrading following the instructions at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/,
make sure you perform the optional post upgrade tasks like Clean up retired
packages, clean up old packages, clean up old keys, clean up old
sym-links.  Doing that can reduce your chances of future problems.  I've
been following those instructions for longer than I can remember and it's
always worked for me.

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 12:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users <
users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> This happened to me again when I went to upgrade my
> shop computer from FC40 to fc41.  So I though I'd repeat
> my fix here:
>
> Note: dnf dose not use /etc/redhat-release as it release
> version.  It uses
> /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*
>
> -T
>
> When dnf thinks you are on the wrong release:
>
>if after the upgrade, dnf still thinks you are on the older version,
>remove the stray "fedora-release-common"
>For example:
># rpm -qa \*fedora-release-common\*
>fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
>fedora-release-common-40-39.noarch
># dnf remove fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
>or globally
># dnf upgrade --allowerase --releasever=[your release, 41
> for example]
>
> --
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>


-- 
Charlie
-- 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

tip: when dnf thinks you are on the wrong release

2024-11-10 Thread ToddAndMargo via users 

Hi All,

This happened to me again when I went to upgrade my
shop computer from FC40 to fc41.  So I though I'd repeat
my fix here:

Note: dnf dose not use /etc/redhat-release as it release
version.  It uses
   /usr/share/licenses/fedora/fedora-release-common*

-T

When dnf thinks you are on the wrong release:

  if after the upgrade, dnf still thinks you are on the older version,
  remove the stray "fedora-release-common"
  For example:
  # rpm -qa \*fedora-release-common\*
  fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
  fedora-release-common-40-39.noarch
  # dnf remove fedora-release-common-39-36.noarch
  or globally
  # dnf upgrade --allowerase --releasever=[your release, 41 
for example]


--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue