Bug 842844
Summary: | gdm refuses to start after F15->F17 upgrade | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michal Jaegermann <michal> |
Component: | gdm | Assignee: | Ray Strode [halfline] <rstrode> |
Status: | CLOSED WORKSFORME | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 17 | CC: | rstrode |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-07-31 00:45:15 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Michal Jaegermann
2012-07-24 17:46:10 UTC
Here what was the problem. Anaconda bailed out on me in the middle of an upgrade because of an error in a "preun" scriptlet in an emacs package just about to be replaced. That left me with a massive cleanup job on a system which was already too far gone from the original but not enough to work somehow as an upgrade (in particular 'package-cleanup --cleandupes' was failing due to broken/breaking dependencies and required a gueswork and a "manual help"). As a result after a recovery "posttrans" were NOT run and in particular 'dconf update' from gdm package scripts was skipped. That one happens to create that missing /etc/dconf/db/gdm binary file. Still it would be nice in a response to my original bug report to get a hint that possibly 'dconf update' was not executed instead of leaving me to my own devices. Regardless - in my opinion this is buggy and getting buggier as this whole heap becomes more and more complicated and fragile. A misguided push to binary configuration files with mysterious functionality just repeats very old errors. sorry, didn't see the original message go by until now. FWIW, the author of dconf doesn't like that we're using dconf for lockdown either. He'd rather each component in a GDM session notice it's running in a locked down session and do the appropriate lock down on its own. |