Hey Richard, my kernel 90%+ of my userland is x86_64, but I do have a couple packages that I know are 32-bit, presumably they pulled in gtk3.i686 during install.
Which logs would be valuable? I'll admit my dnf-foo isn't as strong as it probably should be, but happy to supply what ever is needed. I flipped through the dnf.librepo.log, dnf.log, and dnf.rpm.log for today and didn't see anything like a dependency tree.On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Eric,
You're the first person to try upgrading on i386, so I'm not sure why
gtk3 would need to be removed. Can you get any logs on why dnf thinks
this is required? Thanks.
Richard.
On 16 May 2016 at 19:03, Eric Griffith <egriffith92@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey guys, I'm attempting to take part in the May 16 Test Day, but I'm
> running into a slight problem with the Gnome320 copr. Fully up to date F23
> Workstation system is giving me the following conflict during upgrade.
>
> sudo dnf update gnome-software --best --allowerasing
>
> Installing:
> f24-backgrounds-base
> noarch 24.1.1-1.fc23 rhughes-f23-gnome320
> 23 M
> Upgrading:
> gnome-software x86_64 3.20.3-0.191.20160425git.fc23 rhughes-f23-gnome320
> 3.3 M
> json-glib x86_64 1.2.0-1.fc23 rhughes-f23-gnome320
> 137 k
> libgusb x86_64 0.2.9-1.fc23 rhughes-f23-gnome320
> 46 k
> Removing:
> colord-libs i686 1.2.12-1.fc23 @fedora
> 534 k
> gtk3 i686 3.18.9-1.fc23 @updates
> 17 M
> json-glib i686 1.0.4-2.fc23 @fedora
> 457 k
> libgusb i686 0.2.8-1.fc23 @updates
> 103 k
> libnm-gtk i686 1.0.10-1.fc23 @updates
> 229 k
>
> Specifically the "Lets remove gtk3" when I don't see anything from the copr
> that would replace it.
>
> The "problem package" is libgusb-0.2.9.1 from gnome320.
>
> Thoughts on if this would be safe to do?
>
> --Eric--
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
