On 01/16/2014 09:22 AM, Dan Mossor wrote:
On 01/16/2014 08:49 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Dan Mossor <dan.mossor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 01/16/2014 01:10 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
There's something off somewhere. I just fresh installed from the
Alpha USB
stick I had. I ran a dnf update which went OK, other than the usbmuxd
scriptlet failure which iirc is a known issue. After that, I got
down to
installing my other packages and I get quite a few scriptlet
failures now:
1 warning: %post(perl-libs-4:5.18.2-289.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet
failed,
exit status 127
<Snipped>
I ran into this problem yesterday myself on a fresh install. It
first cropped up during the update to KDE 4.12, and I asked Rex
Dieter in the KDE channel about it. I managed to copy the output
from the sddm install, and this is our brief convo about it. He
seems to think it is a systemd problem:
[12:05] <danofsatx> Non-fatal POSTIN scriptlet failure in rpm
package sddm-0.2.0-16.20130914git50ca5b20,fc29,x86_64
[12:05] * rdieter checks sddm packaging
[12:06] <danofsatx> warning:
%post(sddm-0.2.0-16.20130914git50ca5b20,fc29.x86_64) scriptlet
failed, exit status 127
[12:06] <rdieter> odd, looks like systemd's fault
[12:06] <rdieter> it just has: %systemd_post sddm.service
[12:07] <rdieter> hrm, maybe missing runtime dep
[12:07] <rdieter> nope, %{?systemd_requires}
[12:08] <rdieter> wierd
I did a final update last night to bring everything up to speed with
the updates-testing repo enabled, and got this output - it's too
much to paste in the email so it's on paste.fedora:
http://paste.fedoraproject.org/68957/89881516/
Summarization: I'm getting A LOT of scriptlet failures with exit
status 127. Any clues what that exit status means, and what's broken?
Me too. It can't be systemd-208-11 because I don't have that
installed, I still have the original one F20 installs with which is
208-9. I haven't tracked down what's causing this but it must be
something in u-t.
Who having this problem has *NOT* been using dnf?
Chris Murphy
I forgot to mention that - I haven't typed the letters dnf at all on
this system until I wrote this email.
Yum is what I know, yum is what I use.
Also forgot to mention that I have systemd-208-9.fc20.x86_64
I am not sure if dnf is the problem here. I updated my system yesterday
using dnf and (thankfully?) did not see this problem. Just for
comparison, here is a subset of packages I have in commmon with Ankur's
list -
# rpm -qa NetworkManager qt selinux-policy libreoffice firewalld
firewall-config initscripts | sort
firewall-config-0.3.9-1.fc20.noarch
firewalld-0.3.9-1.fc20.noarch
initscripts-9.51-1.fc20.x86_64
NetworkManager-0.9.9.0-24.git20131003.fc20.x86_64
qt-4.8.5-14.fc20.x86_64
selinux-policy-3.12.1-116.fc20.noarch
For the sake of completeness, I run XFCE here and my systemd is
systemd-208-9.fc20.x86_64
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
