Received some errors about systemd being protected with the dnf -y update ⌠but after running the find/replace command across all of those .repo files and restarting, then running an update - everything appears to be in order and matching up correctly.
No. I rebuilt, changed various packages, edit various things without results. I recommend you for the next upgrade; update your f30 and change the release to 31, previous to upgrade; because these issue is persistent⌠Exist old information about similar issue but is obsolete or maybe anybody has habilities superiors to me to fix or search. You can open a bugzilla report about it or ask in Fedora devel email list.
Hi @insomniacjunkie, welcome to Fedora! Please take a minute to go through the posts in #start-here if youâve not had a chance yet.
The repository information is provided by the fedora-repos package. Can you check what version youâre using?
$ rpm -q fedora-repos
fedora-repos-31-1.noarch
In your case, this should say 30. It is possible that some issue prevented certain packages from being updated. Did you notice anything in the transaction check before it asked you to reboot?
Yes, going forward I will change the release to 31 directly before the upgrade command⌠it seems like a huge oversight if this is a common bug. Thanks for the link sand help!
With the change in the repositories obviously you can see now âfoo-30 - x86_64â âŚ
I donât recommend delete âfedora-repos-29-6.noarchâ with dnf⌠because If you remove it; also delete fedora-repos-30-2.noarch because both has a dependency in common (maybe I am wrong); I donât remember now the name (I canât see my pc now; a cirugy in my eyes). But you can test reverting the change in the âreleaseâ in repositories. And attemp delete using rpm.
rpm -e --nodeps fedora-repos-29-6.noarch
mmm I completely forgot; I remember as ampliation, rpmbuild also is affected with these same issue, also outdated docker. containers, remove and paste manually the repositories doesnât work⌠Also you can test it. beautiful
The upgrade finished without errors, as far as I know - at least nothing came up that stated there were any errors after the install. Mind you, I did go grab a bite to eat while it was upgrading - so perhaps something did occur, however I did notice any errors/warnings or indication that something came up. Would there be a way I could query the journal or logs to see this?
~]$ rpm -qa | grep fc29 | wc -l
940
Quite a few⌠940 packages (out of 7035⌠approx 13%) are still fc29⌠how do I upgrade these? dnf update isnât working.
OK the rpm -e commands seemed to have executed partially successfully⌠the kernels are no longer listed. However, dnf distro-sync and dnf update do not run properly.
Here are the results:
[ ~]$ rpm -qa kernel* | sort
kernel-core-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
kernel-core-5.3.13-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-core-5.3.14-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-devel-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
kernel-devel-5.3.13-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-devel-5.3.14-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-headers-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
kernel-headers-5.3.11-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-modules-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
kernel-modules-5.3.13-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-modules-5.3.14-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-modules-extra-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
kernel-modules-extra-5.3.13-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-modules-extra-5.3.14-200.fc30.x86_64
[ ~]$ rpm -e --nodeps kernel-core-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
error: can't create transaction lock on /var/lib/rpm/.rpm.lock (Permission denied)
[ ~]$ sudo rpm -e --nodeps kernel-core-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
warning: file /lib/modules/5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64/updates: remove failed: No such file or directory
[ ~]$ sudo rpm -e --nodeps kernel-devel-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
[ ~]$ sudo rpm -e --nodeps kernel-headers-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
[ ~]$ sudo rpm -e --nodeps kernel-modules-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
depmod: WARNING: could not open modules.order at /lib/modules/5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64: No such file or directory
depmod: WARNING: could not open modules.builtin at /lib/modules/5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64: No such file or directory
[ ~]$ sudo rpm -e --nodeps kernel-modules-extra-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
depmod: WARNING: could not open modules.order at /lib/modules/5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64: No such file or directory
depmod: WARNING: could not open modules.builtin at /lib/modules/5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64: No such file or directory
[ ~]$ rpm -e --nodeps kernel-core-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64
error: package kernel-core-5.3.11-100.fc29.x86_64 is not installed
[ ~]$ rpm -qa kernel* | sort
kernel-core-5.3.13-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-core-5.3.14-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-devel-5.3.13-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-devel-5.3.14-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-headers-5.3.11-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-modules-5.3.13-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-modules-5.3.14-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-modules-extra-5.3.13-200.fc30.x86_64
kernel-modules-extra-5.3.14-200.fc30.x86_64
[ ~]$ sudo dnf clean all
71 files removed
[ ~]$ sudo dnf -y distro-sync
Error:
Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: systemd, systemd-udev
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
I would personally, never suggest the use of rpm -e. One should stick to dnf, since dnf knows about dependencies. rpm does not handle dependencies. @davidva, please do not ask users to use rpm -e --nodeps etc. Itâs more likely to break things than fix them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having fc29 kernels. By default, Fedora keeps 3 most recent kernels. As new ones are installed, old ones are removed.
Can you please run dnf clean all; dnf update and post what errors you get? It should specify which packages are brokenâwe need that information.
OK, this is good to know. I was thinking because there was fc29 kernels it would somehow have an effect on my packages designating to fc29.
This results in:
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!
However, if I run dnf -y distro-sync
Error:
Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: systemd, systemd-udev
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
Only in Disneyland⌠I can prove no; and it is a simple example. As when you uses weak dependencies; make fools changes in fedora-release; put bad ideas as âmodular repositoriesâ is other place to discuss it.
You are lost man, about the problem. Please read line by line the context; isnât a simple problem of fedora repositories or old kernels (I have experienced this same error in several releases.)⌠Sorry but is the reality. I a done here (because isnât beneficios to my health, to touch a machine now); exist people earn money in devel or fedora discuss; altruist extra job isnât badâŚ
Other:
rpm --nodeps with old packages is more secure to remove all system with dnf⌠Experience man.
You havenât said anything here that would count as evidence towards a proof.
That is not âthe realityâ. There isnât even sufficient information here to be able to say what caused the problem in the first place.
This is also false. If the correct set of packages is installed, it should not try to âremove all system with dnfâ in the first place. So letâs get to the root of the issue before throwing the whole toolkit at it randomly.
