On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Beartooth <Beartooth@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:03:20 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:08:00 +0000 (UTC), Beartooth wrote: > [...] >> What do you get if you run >> >> rpm --query --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)' >> >> and >> >> repoquery --whatprovides 'mono(gtk-sharp)' >> >> ? > The first tells me an rpm for gtk-sharp; the second just gives my > root prompt back. > >> >> In case you don't have repoquery yet, you can find it in the "yum-utils" >> package. > > I tried "yum install yum-utils" -- it says I have it, and it's > the latest. > >> There has been a gtk-shark2 update recently, and it certainly provides >> these four things which are complained about. >> >> "sysinfo" is not found in the Fedora package collection, however. I >> wonder whether that might be of importance. If you "rpm -e sysinfo" it >> and then try yum update again, any change? >> >>> Complete! >>> (1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report']) >>> >>> I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the >>> error line. >>> >>> It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have >>> been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to >>> 2007). >>> >>> So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try. >>> >>> Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good, >>> and >>> urge me strongly not to go there. >> >> Still you could choose to go there (and add an exception for the >> certificate). ;) > > I tried it, and the warnings got stronger; one (Galeon or > Epiphany) assured me that no honest X,Y, or Z (which seemed to cover 99 > 44/100% of the waterfront among them) would ever ask me to do that. > That's when I quit and asked here instead. *Can* someone vouch for > yum.baseurl.org -- including that nobody could be spoofing it?? > > I'd've done it if it'd been a site I know; but it isn't. > > [....] >>> Transaction Summary >>> > ================================================================================ >>> Install 0 Package(s) >>> Update 0 Package(s) >>> Remove 18 Package(s) >>> >>> Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with >>> things >>> named sysinfo nor gnome-desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some >>> such thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time >>> with that ...) > > Now, after Ron Siven's assurance here, I have removed "sysinfo" > -- and everything seems fine. Some sort of orphan from an old install, > maybe .... > >> If it prints a list of what packages it will remove, it won't silently >> remove itself. > > Yes; many a time have I taken advantage of that. > >> What makes "yum remove ..." dangerous is that other dependency chains >> are much longer and would lead to removing many more packages. Paying >> close attention to the printed list and the y/n safety check is very >> important. > > Yes!! > > Many many thanks! > > -- > Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert > Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about. It will probably do you or anyone who upgrades a system to run `package-cleanup --orphans' to find old packages no longer resident in enabled repositories. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
