On 08/07/16 08:11, Rick Stevens wrote:
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.
Thanks Rick, I had installed those packages manually at one point
because the upgrade broke Xorg both for the nvidia packages an nouveau,
but I thought I had uninstalled the manually installed versions before I
eventually got to the install method that enabled the nvidia packages to
work.
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.
From the command you have listed and what the same command shows on my
system, is that the akmod-nvidia packages in the two repositories are
named differently, I thought they were the same name.
regards,
Steve
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
--
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
