Bug 473793

Summary: After using preupgrade for f9->f10, fedora.repo should not be updated?
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: András Szilárd <andras.szilard>
Component: preupgradeAssignee: Seth Vidal <skvidal>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 10CC: wwoods
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-12-05 16:12:32 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description András Szilárd 2008-11-30 11:38:52 EST
Description of problem:
After (yum update, yum install preupgrade,) preupgrade the /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo was not updated to the Fedora 10 repository. Only "Fedora 10 - x86_64 - Updates" was available. Should not that repo file be updated?

The "original" problem can be seen here: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
$ rpm -qa preupgrade
preupgrade-1.0.0-1.fc10.noarch

How reproducible:
Did not try.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:
F10 repository should be added after preupgrade?

Additional info:
I could not really find what the Fedora 10 repo supposed to be.
Smart Package Manager gave me some hints, but it did not updated the repo file, even though I accepted the proposed changes. Finally, I updated the fedora.repo file manually.
Comment 1 Will Woods 2008-12-05 14:12:31 EST
Do you have a file named /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo.rpmnew?

If you customized/modified your fedora.repo, the upgrade will leave it alone. If that file exists, copy it over /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo and everything should be OK.

(See bug 471579)
Comment 2 András Szilárd 2008-12-05 16:05:28 EST
Yes, I have modified the repo file (in July), and the repo.rpmnew file seems to be fine. The new repo file does not contain the exact release and arch, but parameters. So, I guess, this will not be an issue anymore.
Thanks, and let me know if you want to check anything else.
Comment 3 Will Woods 2008-12-05 16:12:32 EST

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 471579 ***