I will post that output later, but I can say that it wouldn't do a "yum update yum" either, it ended telling me there was nothing really to do. the only difference in version information from the fc8 installed version of yum and the fc9 version was just fc8 vs fc9, both were 3.2.19. I am fearful of the skip-broken option, i think preupgrade might be the way i go, or data backup and fresh install. From what I have read there was a pretty decent change in how the initscripts are handled between fc8 and fc9 On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:47 AM, James Antill <james-yum@xxxxxxx> wrote: > "Casey Boone" <caseyboone@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> If it is actually newer, then it should happen >>> automatically. Eg. given: >>> >>> httpd-tools-2.2.9-1.fc8.i386 >>> httpd-tools-2.2.9-1.fc9.i386 >>> >>> ...the fc9 one will be newer. So there must be something else >>> happening, it is somewhat likely that there is an actually newer >>> package in Fedora 8, like: >>> >> >> The filenames differ only in one having fc8 and one having fc9. I >> would have thought that fc9 meant an upgrade as well, but check for >> yourself. My original message has a copy/paste of both what it says >> is installed and of the exact name of the rpm file as downloaded from >> an updates repo. > > It had the end of the depsolving, but not enough to be sure something > else wasn't happening to cause that problem (my guess would be > something which has a newer fc8 nevra requiring the fc8 version). > If you can't see anything else that looks wierd, upload a full "yum > -d 9 update" somewhere that should allow us to find the problem. > > -- > James Antill -- james@xxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > Yum mailing list > Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum > _______________________________________________ Yum mailing list Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum
