Re: dnf Upgrade Produces GPG Error

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

 



On 18/3/18 12:02 pm, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/18/18 08:41, Stephen Morris wrote:
When I used dnfdragora to remove the 28.0.0 version from negativo17 and install the
29.0.0 version from Adobe's repository, it told me the Adobe version was a
downgrade from the installed version, which I didn't understand. I have now managed
to get dnf to install all the updates without it attempting to put on the
negativo17 flash update.

I wasn't explicitly using the version of flash from negativo17, it was an
incidental process. Originally I was only using negativo17's steam, handbrake and
nvidia repositories, until they recommended replacing their nvidia repository with
their multimedia repository. A little while ago I was getting a conflict between
the xorg nvidia packages I had installed and their nvidia package for xorg, and
while I was investigating how to resolve that (which I finished up resolving by
removing all the xorg nvidia packages) I found they had a .repo file that contained
definitions for all of their repositories, so, rather than having multiple .repo
files for their repositories I replaced them with the single .repo file. As a
result of this, having resolved the nvidia packages conflict, I issued the dnf
upgrade and it immediately upgraded the Adobe flash I had installed at the time to
the version that was in the negativo17 flash repository.

I don't think I see a question in the above.

But I would note the potential for problems when one uses multiple repos and packages
are duplicated.  In those cases it is advisable that one edits the repo file from
which you don't want to install the duplicate package to add the "exclude" directive.

You are right, I wasn't looking at it from that perspective, I was approaching it from the perspective of dnf being able to decide which was the best package to use if there were multiples providing the same functionality. I may have to disable to negativo17 flash repository, or set up a permanent exclude of the flash package if there are other useful packages in the negativo17 repository that the adobe repository doesn't provide, but before deciding which way to go I will have to thoroughly investigate what is in both repositories.


regards,

Steve




_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [EPEL Devel]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux