| Summary: | /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit is needed by upstart-1.2-4.fc16.x86_64 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Donald Cohen <don-redhat-z6y> |
| Component: | yum | Assignee: | Fedora Packaging Toolset Team <packaging-team> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 16 | CC: | ffesti, james.antill, maxamillion, pmatilai, tla, zpavlas |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-02-14 02:09:27 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Donald Cohen
2011-10-05 16:21:56 UTC
Although I can get past the error above by unchecking the updates to upstart and openbios, I now get the following: ERROR with transaction check vs depsolve: python(abi) = 2.6 is needed by rhpl-0.221-2.x86_64 python(abi) = 2.6 is needed by kudzu-1.2.86-2.x86_64 Please report this error at http://yum.baseurl.org/report I don't see updates with labels rhpl or kudzu to uncheck. If you could tell me which of the 229 updates to uncheck, then I could at least install the others! many small manual yum updates later it appears the problem is with python, python-devel, python-libs so now every update I have to uncheck 5 packages ... AIUI those are old/obsolete packages (rhpl and kudzu) and you can remove them. It sounds like that would solve the problem with python but how about upstart and openbios? Next similar complaint: Protected multilib versions: fribidi-0.19.2-3.fc15.i686 != fribidi-0.19.2-2.fc12.x86_64 : Protected multilib versions: fribidi-0.19.2-3.fc15.i686 != fribidi-0.19.2-2.fc12.x86_64 I was able to uninstall rhpl and kudzu and then install the python updates. I was also able to uninstall upstart. I cannot uninstall openbios - seems to be used by lots of stuff. So I'm now down to three packages that I have to manually exclude: openbios libass (two versions - 32 and 64) which complain about fribidi Does it give any indication why it won't update fribidi.x86_64? When I run software update I get a message "Transaction error" and if I click on details this is what I see: Protected multilib versions: fribidi-0.19.2-3.fc15.i686 != fribidi-0.19.2-2.fc12.x86_64 : Protected multilib versions: fribidi-0.19.2-3.fc15.i686 != fribidi-0.19.2-2.fc12.x86_64 BTW, it's interesting that this refers to fc15 and fc12 when I'm now in fc16. Maybe I should be doing something like yum remove of those versions above. It was non-trivial to figure out that this was coming from libass. I'd suggest that such output tell the user which packages are involved. Let me know how to generate any other output you'd like to see. removing fc12 seems to work. For some reason, libass fc16 seems to rely on fribidi fc15. So now I'm down to the original problem with openbios-common-1.0.4.1031.fc16 which says ERROR with transaction check vs depsolve: openbios-common = 1.0-2.fc12 is needed by openbios-ppc-1.0-2.fc12.noarch Please report this error at http://yum.baseurl.org/report Maybe I don't need openbios-ppc-1.0-2.fc12.noarch ? yep, erasing that solves the problem Now my particular current problems are solved, but clearly this is not working as the automatic update solution that it is intended to be. This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component. Fedora 16 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2013-02-12. Fedora 16 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |