On 07/07/2016 02:51 PM, Stephen Morris wrote: > On 07/07/16 09:49, Ed Greshko wrote: >> >> On 07/07/16 06:10, Stephen Morris wrote: >>> Thanks Ed. I issued the command and got back Packager: None. >>> I then tried the same command on a package that I know only exists in >>> the Negativo17 >>> repositories and that gave the same response of Packager : None. >> Another option... >> >> dnf info kmod-nvidia > Thanks Ed, I tried that command and it did tell me that it was indeed > installed and which repository it came from. I then tried a dnf info > kmod-nvidia* which showed me all the associated packages from the > Negativo17 and Rpmfusion repositories. It also told me that the > kmod-nvidia-$(uname -r) packages were installed and came from repository > @commandline, which I assume means they were compiled, which surprised > me because I thought the purpose of the kmod-nvidia metadata package was > to pull in and install the pre-compiled nvidia binary packages matching > the kernel, is that not correct? "@@commandline" means that the RPM was installed from an RPM residing on the local disk and not from the web. Any time you install an RPM from a local disk file (regardless of where you downloaded it from), it will appear to come from the "@@comandline" repo since dnf didn't go out and fetch the RPM itself. > I also thought the akmod-nvidia package was in both the Negativo17 and > Rpmfusion repositories, but when I issue 'dnf info akmod-nvidia' it only > shows me information relative the installed version that came from the > Negativo17 repository. Shouldn't it have told me that there was an > installed version that came from the Negativo17 repository and an > uninstalled version in the Rpmfusion repository? I would think under "Installed Packages" it would list the installed one from "@@commandline" and under "Available Packages" the ones available from Negativo17 and rpmfusion. I'm not running akmod-nvidia on my F23 box, but searching for any "akmod*" stuff: [root@prophead ~]# dnf list akmod* Last metadata expiration check: 0:06:56 ago on Thu Jul 7 14:51:02 2016. Installed Packages akmod-VirtualBox.x86_64 5.0.16-2.fc23 @@commandline akmods.noarch 0.5.4-2.fc23 @@commandline Available Packages akmod-ndiswrapper.x86_64 1.60-1.fc23 rpmfusion-free akmod-nvidia.x86_64 1:358.16-1.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-nvidia-304xx.x86_64 304.131-2.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-nvidia-340xx.x86_64 1:340.96-1.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-wl.x86_64 6.30.223.271-4.fc23 rpmfusion-nonfree akmod-xtables-addons.x86_64 2.10-1.fc23 rpmfusion-free Yes, the akmod-VirtualBox and akmods.noarch were installed from RPMs I had downloaded previously. > Just relative to the 2nd message in my original thread, isn't that > message for the standard F24 kernel, saying that it has an unsatisfiable > dependency on the associated kernel-core package? My issue with that is > if that is the case, how and why did a 'sudo dnf upgrade' issued the day > after the upgrade install that kernel, because I believe the missing > dependency should have stopped it from being installed, or am I missing > something? > > regards, > Steve > > -- > users mailing list > users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "As for me, I aspire to be the Walmart Greeter in Hell." - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
