Re: network has gone down again, and I cannot figure out why

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 13:05 -0600, David G. Miller wrote:
> dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx  wrote:
> 
> > Also, looking at what logwatch reports, I noticed the following:
> >
> > Packages Erased:
> >    bind-config
> > Another WAG but it appears to have been replaced by:
> >
> > Packages Installed:
> >    sane-backends-libs.i386 1.0.18-2.fc5
> >    kernel.i686 2.6.17-1.2187_FC5
> >    caching-nameserver.i386 30:9.3.2-33.fc5 <-- This
> >    libgconf-java.i386 2.12.4-2.fc5
> >
> Sort of responding to my own post...  Given the above, I found the 
> following output from yum today to be quite amusing:
> 
> Added 63 new packages, deleted 51 old in 28.11 seconds
> Resolving Dependencies
> --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
> ---> Downloading header for bind-config to pack into transaction set.
> bind-config-9.3.2-20.FC5. 100% |=========================|  35 kB    
> 00:00    
> ---> Package bind-config.i386 30:9.3.2-20.FC5 set to be updated
> --> Running transaction check
> --> Processing Dependency: bind = 30:9.3.2-20.FC5 for package: bind-config
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: Missing Dependency: bind = 30:9.3.2-20.FC5 is needed by package 
> bind-config
> Thu Sep 28 12:50:31 MDT 2006
> [root@spindle ~]# rpm -q bind
> bind-9.3.2-33.fc5
> [root@spindle ~]# rpm -q bind-config
> package bind-config is not installed
> 
> Looks like some part of FC5 still thinks bind-config is needed.  I have 
> a funny feeling I'll have to figure out why or yum updates will fail on 
> bind-config dependencies until I do.


I went for broke, as I posted earlier in the week, and installed the FC6
bind rpms and the system-setup* rpms and this crate runs smooth. I would
hazard a guess that any one with weirdness going on, on their network,
network printers, file sharing, you name it, might be in those packages.
I notice that it tried to update you from 30:9.3.2-20 and it would have
taken you to 2-35 I think it was. That's where it went to Hell. I'm
using 2.41 from FC6 and it's great. No more strange stuff in hosts,
either. All weirdness gone. Ric

> 
-- 
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
...the Sin of Ignorance, and 
...the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.

Linux user# 44256
Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net

================================================

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux