Discussion:
Unable to update/upgrade Fedora-16 due to yum Transaction error
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-27 14:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Dear Friends,


While upgrading through "Yumex" ,everything is running well,except a
problem is occurring while upgrading packages.

The following is a snapshot of my system:
19:43:01 : network interface p2p1 (via-rhine) is connected
19:43:02 : Connected to an network
19:43:02 : network interface p2p1 (via-rhine) is connected
19:43:02 : Starting yum child process
19:43:26 : YUM: Yum Version : 3.4.3
19:43:27 : YUM: Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, dellsysid,
etckeeper, fastestmirror, fs-
19:43:29 : Getting available updates
19:43:29 : YUM: Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
19:43:29 : YUM: * fedora: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-free: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-free-debuginfo: mirror.yandex.ru
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-free-rawhide-source: mirror.yandex.ru
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-free-updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-free-updates-testing: mirror.yandex.ru
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-nonfree: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-nonfree-source: mirror.yandex.ru
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-source: mirror.yandex.ru
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing: mirror.yandex.ru
19:43:29 : YUM: * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing-source:
mirror.yandex.ru
19:43:29 : YUM: * updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
19:43:29 : YUM: * updates-source: ftp.kddilabs.jp
19:43:29 : YUM: * updates-testing: ftp.kddilabs.jp
19:43:29 : YUM: * updates-testing-source: ftp.kddilabs.jp
19:43:29 : Downloaded : repomd_XiuAjtmp.xml ( 0 )
19:43:31 : YUM: 0 packages excluded due to repository protections
19:43:34 : 227 packages returned
19:43:34 : Getting available obsoletes
19:43:34 : 1 packages returned
19:43:34 : Adding Packages to view
19:43:35 : Added 228 Packages to view
19:46:14 : YUM: --> Running transaction check
19:46:14 : YUM: ---> Package BackupPC.x86_64 0:3.2.1-6.fc16 will be updated
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package BackupPC.x86_64 0:3.2.1-7.fc16 will be an
update
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package Coin2.x86_64 0:2.5.0-11.fc16 will be updated
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package Coin2.x86_64 0:2.5.0-14.fc16 will be an update
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package GraphicsMagick.x86_64 0:1.3.12-6.fc16 will be
updated
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package GraphicsMagick.x86_64 0:1.3.13-3.fc16 will be
an update
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package GraphicsMagick-c++.x86_64 0:1.3.12-6.fc16 will
be updated
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package GraphicsMagick-c++.x86_64 0:1.3.13-3.fc16 will
be an update
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package GraphicsMagick-c++-devel.x86_64
0:1.3.12-6.fc16 will be updated
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package GraphicsMagick-c++-devel.x86_64
0:1.3.13-3.fc16 will be an update
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package GraphicsMagick-devel.x86_64 0:1.3.12-6.fc16
will be updated
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package GraphicsMagick-devel.x86_64 0:1.3.13-3.fc16
will be an update
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package autocorr-en.noarch 1:3.4.4.2-7.fc16 will be
updated
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package autocorr-en.noarch 1:3.4.5.2-1.fc16 will be an
update
19:46:15 : YUM: ---> Package autofs.x86_64 1:5.0.6-4.fc16 will be updated
.
.
.
19:46:30 : YUM: --> Running transaction check
19:46:30 : YUM: ---> Package cuetools.x86_64 0:1.4.0-0.7.svn305.fc16 will
be installed
19:46:30 : YUM: ---> Package libpinyin-data.x86_64 0:0.3.0-2.fc16 will be
installed
19:46:30 : YUM: ---> Package libreplaygain.x86_64 0:0.9.1-0.1.svn453.fc16
will be installed
19:46:30 : YUM: ---> Package libxavs1.x86_64 0:0.1.51-2.fc16 will be
installed
19:46:30 : YUM: --> Finished Dependency Resolution
19:46:30 : YUM: --> Running transaction check
19:46:30 : YUM: ---> Package kernel.x86_64 0:3.1.7-1.fc16 will be erased
19:46:30 : YUM: ---> Package kernel-devel.x86_64 0:3.1.7-1.fc16 will be
erased
19:46:30 : YUM: --> Finished Dependency Resolution
19:46:42 : YUM: Setting up and reading Presto delta metadata
19:46:52 : YUM: warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature,
key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
*19:46:52 : ERROR: Error in yum Transaction : Public key for
npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not installed*
*
*
How to rectify the error in yum Transaction,on the last line.Please Help me.

Thank you all.
From
-kguha
(KAUSHIK GUHA)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/67596ff2/attachment-0001.html>
Reindl Harald
2012-01-27 14:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
Dear Friends,
While upgrading through "Yumex" ,everything is running well,except a problem is
occurring while upgrading packages.
19:46:52 : YUM: warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
/19:46:52 : ERROR: Error in yum Transaction : Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed/
How to rectify the error in yum Transaction,on the last line.Please Help me.
this package must not be in the F16 repo and i guess this is already fixed
throw away yumex and type "yum cleanall && yum upgrade" in a root-shell if
you do not want to wait

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/f895fb16/attachment-0001.sig>
Kevin Martin
2012-01-27 15:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kaushik Guha
Dear Friends,
While upgrading through "Yumex" ,everything is running well,except a problem is
occurring while upgrading packages.
19:46:52 : YUM: warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
/19:46:52 : ERROR: Error in yum Transaction : Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed/
How to rectify the error in yum Transaction,on the last line.Please Help me.
this package must not be in the F16 repo and i guess this is already fixed
throw away yumex and type "yum cleanall && yum upgrade" in a root-shell if
you do not want to wait
Install the public key or turn on "no GPG check" under options in Yumex.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/ca64ad72/attachment-0001.html>
Reindl Harald
2012-01-27 15:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Martin
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kaushik Guha
Dear Friends,
While upgrading through "Yumex" ,everything is running well,except a problem is
occurring while upgrading packages.
19:46:52 : YUM: warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
/19:46:52 : ERROR: Error in yum Transaction : Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed/
How to rectify the error in yum Transaction,on the last line.Please Help me.
this package must not be in the F16 repo and i guess this is already fixed
throw away yumex and type "yum cleanall && yum upgrade" in a root-shell if
you do not want to wait
Install the public key or turn on "no GPG check" under options in Yumex.
Kevin
why in the world do you give such TOTALLY WRONG advises
after a correct answer?

a) .fc17 is not intented to be for F16
b) "noGPG check" generally to set is a dumb action



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/641e2ebc/attachment.sig>
Kevin Martin
2012-01-27 16:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kevin Martin
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kaushik Guha
Dear Friends,
While upgrading through "Yumex" ,everything is running well,except a problem is
occurring while upgrading packages.
19:46:52 : YUM: warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
/19:46:52 : ERROR: Error in yum Transaction : Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed/
How to rectify the error in yum Transaction,on the last line.Please Help me.
this package must not be in the F16 repo and i guess this is already fixed
throw away yumex and type "yum cleanall && yum upgrade" in a root-shell if
you do not want to wait
Install the public key or turn on "no GPG check" under options in Yumex.
Kevin
why in the world do you give such TOTALLY WRONG advises
after a correct answer?
a) .fc17 is not intented to be for F16
b) "noGPG check" generally to set is a dumb action
Hmm, interesting question.

I'm guessing, based on what's missing in his yumex output (you did notice that he had trimmed some stuff out of the middle, right)
that he has libvlc installed and has, at some point in the past, installed the npapi-vlc plugin for libvlc rpm and, perhaps, we're
not seeing an update request for libvlc (due to his trimming the output) which may also require, possibly, an update for npapi-vlc.
He does have rpmfusion-free-rawhide-source as one of his active repositories, which is where the source for npapi-vlc comes from.

So no, it's *not* in the F16 repo and perhaps no, it's not already fixed since there's nothing to fix and perhaps he enjoys using
yumex so your asinine comment to "throw away yumex" doesn't help matters at all and yes, you are correct that .fc17 is not
"intented" (intended, BTW) to be for F16 but, be that as it may, it still was picked up, probably as a result of some dependency
checking that was done.

Oh, and by the way, it's "advice", not advises, and your "correct answer" was not necessarily correct at all, just your shooting
your mouth off without doing any actual research as to what may have occurred. If you can't offer semi-knowledgeable advice, don't
attack people who do.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/7b7b33da/attachment.html>
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-27 16:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Kevin.
Post by Kaushik Guha
Dear Friends,
While upgrading through "Yumex" ,everything is running well,except a problem is
occurring while upgrading packages.
19:46:52 : YUM: warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
/19:46:52 : ERROR: Error in yum Transaction : Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed/
How to rectify the error in yum Transaction,on the last line.Please Help me.
this package must not be in the F16 repo and i guess this is already fixed
throw away yumex and type "yum cleanall && yum upgrade" in a root-shell if
you do not want to wait
Install the public key or turn on "no GPG check" under options in Yumex.
Kevin
why in the world do you give such TOTALLY WRONG advises
after a correct answer?
a) .fc17 is not intented to be for F16
b) "noGPG check" generally to set is a dumb action
Hmm, interesting question.
I'm guessing, based on what's missing in his yumex output (you did
notice that he had trimmed some stuff out of the middle, right) that he has
libvlc installed and has, at some point in the past, installed the
npapi-vlc plugin for libvlc rpm and, perhaps, we're not seeing an update
request for libvlc (due to his trimming the output) which may also require,
possibly, an update for npapi-vlc. He does have
rpmfusion-free-rawhide-source as one of his active repositories, which is
where the source for npapi-vlc comes from.
So no, it's *not* in the F16 repo and perhaps no, it's not already fixed
since there's nothing to fix and perhaps he enjoys using yumex so your
asinine comment to "throw away yumex" doesn't help matters at all and yes,
you are correct that .fc17 is not "intented" (intended, BTW) to be for F16
but, be that as it may, it still was picked up, probably as a result of
some dependency checking that was done.
Oh, and by the way, it's "advice", not advises, and your "correct answer"
was not necessarily correct at all, just your shooting your mouth off
without doing any actual research as to what may have occurred. If you
can't offer semi-knowledgeable advice, don't attack people who do.
Kevin
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/e9ae7664/attachment.html>
Reindl Harald
2012-01-27 16:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Martin
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kevin Martin
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kaushik Guha
Dear Friends,
While upgrading through "Yumex" ,everything is running well,except a problem is
occurring while upgrading packages.
19:46:52 : YUM: warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
/19:46:52 : ERROR: Error in yum Transaction : Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed/
How to rectify the error in yum Transaction,on the last line.Please Help me.
this package must not be in the F16 repo and i guess this is already fixed
throw away yumex and type "yum cleanall && yum upgrade" in a root-shell if
you do not want to wait
Install the public key or turn on "no GPG check" under options in Yumex.
Kevin
why in the world do you give such TOTALLY WRONG advises
after a correct answer?
a) .fc17 is not intented to be for F16
b) "noGPG check" generally to set is a dumb action
Oh, and by the way, it's "advice", not advises, and your "correct answer" was not necessarily correct at all, just
your shooting your mouth off without doing any actual research as to what may have occurred. If you can't offer
semi-knowledgeable advice, don't attack people who do.
"yum clean all && yum upgrade" wil solve 99 out of 100 dependecnie/repo-problems
if you do not want to use a shell wait until it goes away over the time
the third option is make a bugreport that the repo needs to be fixed

tell someone he should disable gpgcheck is dumb, because you suggest if people
have problems they should do this - WTF do you understand why this exists and
what damage are hapenning if you get a bad core-package on your system which
was only installed because you disabled gpgcheck?



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/893f6d1b/attachment.sig>
Kevin Martin
2012-01-27 16:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kevin Martin
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kevin Martin
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kaushik Guha
Dear Friends,
While upgrading through "Yumex" ,everything is running well,except a problem is
occurring while upgrading packages.
19:46:52 : YUM: warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
/19:46:52 : ERROR: Error in yum Transaction : Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed/
How to rectify the error in yum Transaction,on the last line.Please Help me.
this package must not be in the F16 repo and i guess this is already fixed
throw away yumex and type "yum cleanall && yum upgrade" in a root-shell if
you do not want to wait
Install the public key or turn on "no GPG check" under options in Yumex.
Kevin
why in the world do you give such TOTALLY WRONG advises
after a correct answer?
a) .fc17 is not intented to be for F16
b) "noGPG check" generally to set is a dumb action
Oh, and by the way, it's "advice", not advises, and your "correct answer" was not necessarily correct at all, just
your shooting your mouth off without doing any actual research as to what may have occurred. If you can't offer
semi-knowledgeable advice, don't attack people who do.
"yum clean all && yum upgrade" wil solve 99 out of 100 dependecnie/repo-problems
if you do not want to use a shell wait until it goes away over the time
the third option is make a bugreport that the repo needs to be fixed
tell someone he should disable gpgcheck is dumb, because you suggest if people
have problems they should do this - WTF do you understand why this exists and
what damage are hapenning if you get a bad core-package on your system which
was only installed because you disabled gpgcheck?
yum clean all and yum upgrade will solve some problems, but certainly not 99% of them. For example, I *am* a tester of rawhide and
have been fighting a battle with the x11 updates. I finally removed about 25 x11 packages that I determined weren't necessary on my
system, ran the yum update, and finally was able to get my x11 updated. yum clean all would not have done *anything* to correct
that issue.

And yes, I'm well aware of what the gpgchecking does and why it should not be disabled. However, being able to disable it is there
for a reason and he was trying to update a package from a repository that he knows and, presumably, trusts. And sometimes the gpg
keys aren't available or are screwed up.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/5a179931/attachment.html>
Reindl Harald
2012-01-27 16:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Martin
yum clean all and yum upgrade will solve some problems, but certainly not 99% of them. For example, I *am* a
tester of rawhide and have been fighting a battle with the x11 updates. I finally removed about 25 x11 packages
that I determined weren't necessary on my system, ran the yum update, and finally was able to get my x11 updated.
yum clean all would not have done *anything* to correct that issue.
this is a totally different topic
Post by Kevin Martin
And yes, I'm well aware of what the gpgchecking does
but you do still not understand it
proved by "sometimes the gpg keys aren't available or are screwed up"
Post by Kevin Martin
and why it should not be disabled. However, being able to
disable it is there for a reason and he was trying to update a package from a repository that he knows and,
presumably, trusts.
so tell him "yum --nogpgcheck upgrade" because this is temporary, tell
people disable it per option will mostly result in permanently disabled
Post by Kevin Martin
And sometimes the gpg keys aren't available or are screwed up
and THAT should be a alarm signal and NOT SOLVED by disable
the check because this may happen because you hit a compromised
mirror or your dns-server was compromised

so take a breath and think what disable the check would make for damage!

after that think again for what reason the checks are there
exactly to prevent from damage in such cases


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/7b411ab5/attachment.sig>
Kevin Martin
2012-01-27 16:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kevin Martin
yum clean all and yum upgrade will solve some problems, but certainly not 99% of them. For example, I *am* a
tester of rawhide and have been fighting a battle with the x11 updates. I finally removed about 25 x11 packages
that I determined weren't necessary on my system, ran the yum update, and finally was able to get my x11 updated.
yum clean all would not have done *anything* to correct that issue.
this is a totally different topic
Post by Kevin Martin
And yes, I'm well aware of what the gpgchecking does
but you do still not understand it
proved by "sometimes the gpg keys aren't available or are screwed up"
Post by Kevin Martin
and why it should not be disabled. However, being able to
disable it is there for a reason and he was trying to update a package from a repository that he knows and,
presumably, trusts.
so tell him "yum --nogpgcheck upgrade" because this is temporary, tell
people disable it per option will mostly result in permanently disabled
Post by Kevin Martin
And sometimes the gpg keys aren't available or are screwed up
and THAT should be a alarm signal and NOT SOLVED by disable
the check because this may happen because you hit a compromised
mirror or your dns-server was compromised
so take a breath and think what disable the check would make for damage!
after that think again for what reason the checks are there
exactly to prevent from damage in such cases
So my last comment on this is that clicking on "no GPG check" in yumex, at least in my experience, does not make that a permanent
option. If you need/want to turn it off it needs to be done each time.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/3c8bbbbb/attachment-0001.html>
Joe Zeff
2012-01-27 19:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
so tell him "yum --nogpgcheck upgrade" because this is temporary, tell
people disable it per option will mostly result in permanently disabled
I don't know about anybody else, but I had the impression that this was
exactly what he was suggesting. And, if you really want to be careful
about it, use this command to upgrade *only* the problem package.
Reindl Harald
2012-01-27 19:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
so tell him "yum --nogpgcheck upgrade" because this is temporary, tell
people disable it per option will mostly result in permanently disabled
I don't know about anybody else, but I had the impression that this was exactly
what he was suggesting. And, if you really want to be careful about it, use this
command to upgrade *only* the problem package.
without EXPLICIT warning that it is generally not a good idea and
why tjhere may be enough uneducated users who starts thinking
"well if something does not run disbale gpgcheck is a solution"

a fc17 package has nothing to search in a F16 setup and so there
should be no single help to install it with any workaround

this package has to be reported as a bug and not forced
to be updated with or without gpgcheck

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120127/2fe425d1/attachment.sig>
Joe Zeff
2012-01-27 20:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
without EXPLICIT warning that it is generally not a good idea and
why tjhere may be enough uneducated users who starts thinking
"well if something does not run disbale gpgcheck is a solution"
I agree that the only time skipping the check is a good idea is if
you've done the research to make sure that it's a known problem and the
package is OK. In this case, I know that there's an ongoing issue with
rpmfusion, and can recommend it with confidence if (and only if) the
package in question is from rpmfusion. I don't recommend turning it off
for your complete update/upgrade for obvious reasons.
Post by Reindl Harald
a fc17 package has nothing to search in a F16 setup and so there
should be no single help to install it with any workaround
Agreed.
Post by Reindl Harald
this package has to be reported as a bug and not forced
to be updated with or without gpgcheck
In this case, I'd not noted that it was an F17 package and was just
thinking about the gpg issue. Thanx for catching that.
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-28 05:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Agreed Friends,about the comments.
I request you people,not to make a war of words amongst each other.
I Thank very much to: Reindl Harald;
Kevin Martin;
Joe Zeff ;for the valuable suggestions
given by you.
I did uncheck/disable the Fedora "Rawhide" repos.,along with all the
"Test Updates" repos. from Fedora using "Apper"(A fantastic Tool).

MY UPDATE/UPGRADE problem has been solved( ~95 %).I mean after
unchecking some package tools from the update list,my UPDATE/UPGRADE
was SUCCESSFUL.

The only gripe being I can't update "vlc",which is available in the list .

What about the "ATrpms" repositories? I've disabled it
earlier...should I enable it?

The dependency problem and repository configuration is a headache in
this overall Best,stable,solid "FEDORA 16" Linux distro.

-kaushik
Post by Joe Zeff
Post by Reindl Harald
without EXPLICIT warning that it is generally not a good idea and
why tjhere may be enough uneducated users who starts thinking
"well if something does not run disbale gpgcheck is a solution"
I agree that the only time skipping the check is a good idea is if
you've done the research to make sure that it's a known problem and the
package is OK. In this case, I know that there's an ongoing issue with
rpmfusion, and can recommend it with confidence if (and only if) the
package in question is from rpmfusion. I don't recommend turning it off
for your complete update/upgrade for obvious reasons.
Post by Reindl Harald
a fc17 package has nothing to search in a F16 setup and so there
should be no single help to install it with any workaround
Agreed.
Post by Reindl Harald
this package has to be reported as a bug and not forced
to be updated with or without gpgcheck
In this case, I'd not noted that it was an F17 package and was just
thinking about the gpg issue. Thanx for catching that.
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Reindl Harald
2012-01-28 05:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
I did uncheck/disable the Fedora "Rawhide" repos
why were they enabled?
this is a road to hell!
Post by Kaushik Guha
What about the "ATrpms" repositories? I've disabled it
earlier...should I enable it?
only if you want to kill yur system over the long

ATrpms is known to replace base-packages with own versions
and sometimes other packaging (sub-packages) as the original
one and sooner or later this will end in massive depsolv
troubles - the only good at ATrpms is that after some time
if you want get rid of the troubles you are learning
how to deal with "rpm -e --nodpes" and what packages
you must not remove and after all that you know all
core packages by her first name (i was there years ago)

you should avoid to enable as much repos as you can find
in case of repos "more helps more" is totally wrong

your current problems are coming from enable things you
are not knowing what they are (rawhide as best example)

rawhide is the devel-tree and currently F17 and was
never designed for machines which should work all the time

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/456d6110/attachment.sig>
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-28 06:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Thank you again Reindl.
Oh! It was a mistake on my part to enable a hell lot of repos. list.
Sorry,to bother you Friend.

What I'm doing now is,whenever any update/upgrade is available,I uncheck
those packages which has ending as "*.fc17" .The rest packages with
updates(*.fc16) are fine in updating.

But Friend,please help me with this:

[root at localhost kgtaban]# yum update
Loaded plugins: aliases, auto-update-debuginfo, changelog, dellsysid,
downloadonly, etckeeper,
: fastestmirror, filter-data, fs-snapshot,
fusioninventory-agent, keys, langpacks,
: list-data, local, merge-conf, post-transaction-actions,
presto, priorities,
: protectbase, ps, puppetverify, refresh-packagekit,
refresh-updatesd, remove-with-
: leaves, rpm-warm-cache, security, show-leaves, tmprepo,
tsflags, upgrade-helper,
: verify, versionlock
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
updates-debuginfo/metalink
| 5.6 kB 00:00
* fedora: fedora.iitm.ac.in
* fedora-debuginfo: ftp.kddilabs.jp
* fedora-source: ftp.kddilabs.jp
* rpmfusion-free: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
* rpmfusion-free-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net
* rpmfusion-free-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net
* rpmfusion-free-updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
* rpmfusion-free-updates-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net
* rpmfusion-free-updates-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net
* rpmfusion-nonfree: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
* rpmfusion-nonfree-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net
* rpmfusion-nonfree-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net
* updates: fedora.iitm.ac.in
* updates-debuginfo: ftp.kddilabs.jp
* updates-source: ftp.kddilabs.jp
rpmfusion-free-updates-debuginfo
| 2.7 kB 00:00
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-debuginfo
| 2.7 kB 00:00
updates-debuginfo
| 3.1 kB 00:00
updates-debuginfo/primary_db
| 328 kB 00:02
Skipping filters plugin, no data
0 packages excluded due to repository protections
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
Skipping filters plugin, no data
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mplayer-doc.x86_64 0:1.0-0.126.20110816svn.fc16 will be updated
---> Package mplayer-doc.x86_64 0:1.0-0.128.20110816svn.fc17 will be an
update
---> Package npapi-vlc.x86_64 0:1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc16 will be updated
---> Package npapi-vlc.x86_64 0:1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17 will be an update
---> Package python-vlc.noarch 0:1.1.0-2.20100825git.fc14 will be updated
---> Package python-vlc.noarch 0:1.1.0-3.20100825git.fc17 will be an update
---> Package qtractor.x86_64 0:0.5.2-1.fc16 will be updated
---> Package qtractor.x86_64 0:0.5.2-1.fc17 will be an update
---> Package vlc-devel.x86_64 0:1.1.13-3.fc16 will be updated
---> Package vlc-devel.x86_64 0:1.1.13-74.fc16 will be an update
--> Processing Dependency: vlc = 1.1.13 for package:
vlc-devel-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package vlc.x86_64 0:1.1.13-74.fc16 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libgoom2.so.0()(64bit) for package:
vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libmpcdec.so.6()(64bit) for package:
vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libxosd.so.2()(64bit) for package:
vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libgoom2.x86_64 0:0-3.fc16 will be installed
---> Package musepack-tools.x86_64 0:sv8-3.svn435.fc16 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libcuefile.so.0()(64bit) for package:
musepack-tools-sv8-3.svn435.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libreplaygain.so.1()(64bit) for package:
musepack-tools-sv8-3.svn435.fc16.x86_64
---> Package xosd.x86_64 0:2.2.14-14.fc15 will be installed
--> Running transaction check
---> Package cuetools.x86_64 0:1.4.0-0.7.svn305.fc16 will be installed
---> Package libreplaygain.x86_64 0:0.9.1-0.1.svn453.fc16 will be installed
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Dependencies Resolved

=====================================================================================================
Package Arch Version
Repository Size
=====================================================================================================
Updating:
mplayer-doc x86_64 1.0-0.128.20110816svn.fc17
_local 1.5 M
npapi-vlc x86_64 1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17
_local 50 k
python-vlc noarch 1.1.0-3.20100825git.fc17
_local 58 k
qtractor x86_64 0.5.2-1.fc17
_local 1.0 M
vlc-devel x86_64 1.1.13-74.fc16
_local 143 k
Installing for dependencies:
cuetools x86_64 1.4.0-0.7.svn305.fc16
_local 56 k
libgoom2 x86_64 0-3.fc16
_local 78 k
libreplaygain x86_64 0.9.1-0.1.svn453.fc16
_local 8.4 k
musepack-tools x86_64 sv8-3.svn435.fc16
_local 108 k
vlc x86_64 1.1.13-74.fc16
_local 9.1 M
xosd x86_64 2.2.14-14.fc15
_local 47 k

Transaction Summary
=====================================================================================================
Install 6 Packages
Upgrade 5 Packages

Total download size: 12 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
Setting up and reading Presto delta metadata
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 39
MB/s | 12 MB 00:00
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID
8296fa0f: NOKEY


Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed
[root at localhost kgtaban]#

How do I proceed regarding the above matter?

Thanks to all Fedora Friends.

-Kaushik
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Kaushik Guha
I did uncheck/disable the Fedora "Rawhide" repos
why were they enabled?
this is a road to hell!
Post by Kaushik Guha
What about the "ATrpms" repositories? I've disabled it
earlier...should I enable it?
only if you want to kill yur system over the long
ATrpms is known to replace base-packages with own versions
and sometimes other packaging (sub-packages) as the original
one and sooner or later this will end in massive depsolv
troubles - the only good at ATrpms is that after some time
if you want get rid of the troubles you are learning
how to deal with "rpm -e --nodpes" and what packages
you must not remove and after all that you know all
core packages by her first name (i was there years ago)
you should avoid to enable as much repos as you can find
in case of repos "more helps more" is totally wrong
your current problems are coming from enable things you
are not knowing what they are (rawhide as best example)
rawhide is the devel-tree and currently F17 and was
never designed for machines which should work all the time
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/5bf2ba03/attachment-0001.html>
Reindl Harald
2012-01-28 14:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
Thank you again Reindl.
Oh! It was a mistake on my part to enable a hell lot of repos. list.
Sorry,to bother you Friend.
What I'm doing now is,whenever any update/upgrade is available,I uncheck those packages which has ending as
"*.fc17" .The rest packages with updates(*.fc16) are fine in updating.
Dependencies Resolved
=====================================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
=====================================================================================================
mplayer-doc x86_64 1.0-0.128.20110816svn.fc17 _local 1.5 M
npapi-vlc x86_64 1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17 _local 50 k
python-vlc noarch 1.1.0-3.20100825git.fc17 _local 58 k
qtractor x86_64 0.5.2-1.fc17 _local 1.0 M
vlc-devel x86_64 1.1.13-74.fc16 _local 143 k
cuetools x86_64 1.4.0-0.7.svn305.fc16 _local 56 k
libgoom2 x86_64 0-3.fc16 _local 78 k
libreplaygain x86_64 0.9.1-0.1.svn453.fc16 _local 8.4 k
musepack-tools x86_64 sv8-3.svn435.fc16 _local 108 k
vlc x86_64 1.1.13-74.fc16 _local 9.1 M
xosd x86_64 2.2.14-14.fc15 _local 47 k
Transaction Summary
=====================================================================================================
Install 6 Packages
Upgrade 5 Packages
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 39 MB/s | 12 MB 00:00
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not installed
nobody knows where the repo "_local" lives and what the hell are you doing
with your machine - there is nothing to help except enable only

* fedora
* fedora-updates
* rpmfusion-free
* rpmfusion-free-updates
* rpmfusion-free
* rpmfusion-free-updates

to be honesty: if you are playing around with system-components without
the knowledge what are you doing you should g the hard way and
google how yum works and learn to fix this by yourself

maybe after soem hours your machine would be clean, but realize
it is not an easy job since yu have enabled all sort of braindead
repos including ATrpms and your whole setup is broked



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/4bc1aac2/attachment.sig>
Frank Murphy
2012-01-28 14:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
nobody knows where the repo "_local" lives
locate local.conf
the path is listd in there.
--
Regards,

Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
Reindl Harald
2012-01-28 15:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Murphy
Post by Reindl Harald
nobody knows where the repo "_local" lives
locate local.conf
the path is listd in there.
really? :-)

/etc/fonts/conf.avail/51-local.conf
/etc/fonts/conf.d/51-local.conf
/etc/modprobe.d/local.conf

anf if you meant "local.repo" -> this does not exist as default
nor is there any rule saying the repo-file is named exactly
like the repo-name

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/58391c35/attachment.sig>
Frank Murphy
2012-01-28 15:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
Post by Frank Murphy
Post by Reindl Harald
nobody knows where the repo "_local" lives
locate local.conf
the path is listd in there.
really? :-)
less of the smartarse. please.
Post by Reindl Harald
/etc/fonts/conf.avail/51-local.conf
/etc/fonts/conf.d/51-local.conf
I dont believe the tread was about a font problem?
Post by Reindl Harald
/etc/modprobe.d/local.conf
modprobe problem? huumh.

local.conf in the yum plugind dir possible, I 'll guess there.
Post by Reindl Harald
anf if you meant "local.repo" -> this does not exist as default
nor is there any rule saying the repo-file is named exactly
like the repo-name
That is true, _local.repo is created by by yum-plugin-local
but only after local.conf (installed by yum-plugin-local)
has been used at least once.
Why it is named as such is explained in _local.repo
--
Regards,

Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
John Pilkington
2012-01-28 14:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
maybe after soem hours your machine would be clean, but realize
it is not an easy job since yu have enabled all sort of braindead
repos including ATrpms and your whole setup is broked
You seem very free in your dismissal of the ATrpms repo, which I have
used happily for maybe 8 years; when did you last have any actual
experience of using it?

John P
Reindl Harald
2012-01-28 15:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
maybe after soem hours your machine would be clean, but realize
it is not an easy job since yu have enabled all sort of braindead
repos including ATrpms and your whole setup is broked
You seem very free in your dismissal of the ATrpms repo, which I have used happily for
maybe 8 years; when did you last have any actual experience of using it?
2007

the only way was "includepkgs" to use only specified packages

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/295ab067/attachment-0001.sig>
Kevin Martin
2012-01-28 14:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
Thank you again Reindl.
Oh! It was a mistake on my part to enable a hell lot of repos. list.
Sorry,to bother you Friend.
What I'm doing now is,whenever any update/upgrade is available,I uncheck those packages which has ending as "*.fc17" .The rest
packages with updates(*.fc16) are fine in updating.
[root at localhost kgtaban]# yum update
Loaded plugins: aliases, auto-update-debuginfo, changelog, dellsysid, downloadonly, etckeeper,
: fastestmirror, filter-data, fs-snapshot, fusioninventory-agent, keys, langpacks,
: list-data, local, merge-conf, post-transaction-actions, presto, priorities,
: protectbase, ps, puppetverify, refresh-packagekit, refresh-updatesd, remove-with-
: leaves, rpm-warm-cache, security, show-leaves, tmprepo, tsflags, upgrade-helper,
: verify, versionlock
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
updates-debuginfo/metalink | 5.6 kB 00:00
* fedora: fedora.iitm.ac.in <http://fedora.iitm.ac.in>
* fedora-debuginfo: ftp.kddilabs.jp <http://ftp.kddilabs.jp>
* fedora-source: ftp.kddilabs.jp <http://ftp.kddilabs.jp>
* rpmfusion-free: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in <http://mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in>
* rpmfusion-free-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-free-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-free-updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in <http://mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in>
* rpmfusion-free-updates-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-free-updates-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-nonfree: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in <http://mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in <http://mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* updates: fedora.iitm.ac.in <http://fedora.iitm.ac.in>
* updates-debuginfo: ftp.kddilabs.jp <http://ftp.kddilabs.jp>
* updates-source: ftp.kddilabs.jp <http://ftp.kddilabs.jp>
rpmfusion-free-updates-debuginfo | 2.7 kB 00:00
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-debuginfo | 2.7 kB 00:00
updates-debuginfo | 3.1 kB 00:00
updates-debuginfo/primary_db | 328 kB 00:02
Skipping filters plugin, no data
0 packages excluded due to repository protections
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
Skipping filters plugin, no data
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mplayer-doc.x86_64 0:1.0-0.126.20110816svn.fc16 will be updated
---> Package mplayer-doc.x86_64 0:1.0-0.128.20110816svn.fc17 will be an update
---> Package npapi-vlc.x86_64 0:1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc16 will be updated
---> Package npapi-vlc.x86_64 0:1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17 will be an update
---> Package python-vlc.noarch 0:1.1.0-2.20100825git.fc14 will be updated
---> Package python-vlc.noarch 0:1.1.0-3.20100825git.fc17 will be an update
---> Package qtractor.x86_64 0:0.5.2-1.fc16 will be updated
---> Package qtractor.x86_64 0:0.5.2-1.fc17 will be an update
---> Package vlc-devel.x86_64 0:1.1.13-3.fc16 will be updated
---> Package vlc-devel.x86_64 0:1.1.13-74.fc16 will be an update
--> Processing Dependency: vlc = 1.1.13 for package: vlc-devel-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package vlc.x86_64 0:1.1.13-74.fc16 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libgoom2.so.0()(64bit) for package: vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libmpcdec.so.6()(64bit) for package: vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libxosd.so.2()(64bit) for package: vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libgoom2.x86_64 0:0-3.fc16 will be installed
---> Package musepack-tools.x86_64 0:sv8-3.svn435.fc16 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libcuefile.so.0()(64bit) for package: musepack-tools-sv8-3.svn435.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libreplaygain.so.1()(64bit) for package: musepack-tools-sv8-3.svn435.fc16.x86_64
---> Package xosd.x86_64 0:2.2.14-14.fc15 will be installed
--> Running transaction check
---> Package cuetools.x86_64 0:1.4.0-0.7.svn305.fc16 will be installed
---> Package libreplaygain.x86_64 0:0.9.1-0.1.svn453.fc16 will be installed
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
=====================================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
=====================================================================================================
mplayer-doc x86_64 1.0-0.128.20110816svn.fc17 _local 1.5 M
npapi-vlc x86_64 1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17 _local 50 k
python-vlc noarch 1.1.0-3.20100825git.fc17 _local 58 k
qtractor x86_64 0.5.2-1.fc17 _local 1.0 M
vlc-devel x86_64 1.1.13-74.fc16 _local 143 k
cuetools x86_64 1.4.0-0.7.svn305.fc16 _local 56 k
libgoom2 x86_64 0-3.fc16 _local 78 k
libreplaygain x86_64 0.9.1-0.1.svn453.fc16 _local 8.4 k
musepack-tools x86_64 sv8-3.svn435.fc16 _local 108 k
vlc x86_64 1.1.13-74.fc16 _local 9.1 M
xosd x86_64 2.2.14-14.fc15 _local 47 k
Transaction Summary
=====================================================================================================
Install 6 Packages
Upgrade 5 Packages
Total download size: 12 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Setting up and reading Presto delta metadata
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 39 MB/s | 12 MB 00:00
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not installed
[root at localhost kgtaban]#
How do I proceed regarding the above matter?
Thanks to all Fedora Friends.
-Kaushik
Post by Kaushik Guha
I did uncheck/disable the Fedora "Rawhide" repos
why were they enabled?
this is a road to hell!
Post by Kaushik Guha
What about the "ATrpms" repositories? I've disabled it
earlier...should I enable it?
only if you want to kill yur system over the long
ATrpms is known to replace base-packages with own versions
and sometimes other packaging (sub-packages) as the original
one and sooner or later this will end in massive depsolv
troubles - the only good at ATrpms is that after some time
if you want get rid of the troubles you are learning
how to deal with "rpm -e --nodpes" and what packages
you must not remove and after all that you know all
core packages by her first name (i was there years ago)
you should avoid to enable as much repos as you can find
in case of repos "more helps more" is totally wrong
your current problems are coming from enable things you
are not knowing what they are (rawhide as best example)
rawhide is the devel-tree and currently F17 and was
never designed for machines which should work all the time
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Kaushik,

It would appear that you need to remove at least the npapi-vlc for fc17 (and probably should remove the mplayer-doc, python-vlc,
and qtractor for fc17 packages as well just to get back to cleaner system). Then npapi-vlc won't have to get updated and that
gpgcheck error won't come thru.

Actually, if you are trying to get to a rawhide-free system you may want to do an "rpm -qa | grep fc17" to get a list of the
packages you have installed from rawhide and then remove those (there's nothing inherently wrong with having rawhide packages
installed as long as you know what you are getting into...sometimes those packages have updates that fix issues that you are having
and that will never get back into the FC level you happen to be working in...just make sure you only install what you need if you
are going to "extend" into the rawhide space). Just beware of all of the dependency issues you may run into.

And now, a rant of my own.

If people would get off of their soapboxes and actually help out this list would be a lot more helpful for those that are fairly new
to Fedora and/or are trying to learn and get better at using/administering it. We were all new once and needed help along the way.
Constructive help instead of preaching typically works better at teaching.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/c0f9d0c8/attachment.html>
Kevin Martin
2012-01-28 15:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Martin
Post by Kaushik Guha
Thank you again Reindl.
Oh! It was a mistake on my part to enable a hell lot of repos. list.
Sorry,to bother you Friend.
What I'm doing now is,whenever any update/upgrade is available,I uncheck those packages which has ending as "*.fc17" .The rest
packages with updates(*.fc16) are fine in updating.
[root at localhost kgtaban]# yum update
Loaded plugins: aliases, auto-update-debuginfo, changelog, dellsysid, downloadonly, etckeeper,
: fastestmirror, filter-data, fs-snapshot, fusioninventory-agent, keys, langpacks,
: list-data, local, merge-conf, post-transaction-actions, presto, priorities,
: protectbase, ps, puppetverify, refresh-packagekit, refresh-updatesd, remove-with-
: leaves, rpm-warm-cache, security, show-leaves, tmprepo, tsflags, upgrade-helper,
: verify, versionlock
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
updates-debuginfo/metalink | 5.6 kB 00:00
* fedora: fedora.iitm.ac.in <http://fedora.iitm.ac.in>
* fedora-debuginfo: ftp.kddilabs.jp <http://ftp.kddilabs.jp>
* fedora-source: ftp.kddilabs.jp <http://ftp.kddilabs.jp>
* rpmfusion-free: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in <http://mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in>
* rpmfusion-free-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-free-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-free-updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in <http://mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in>
* rpmfusion-free-updates-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-free-updates-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-nonfree: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in <http://mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in <http://mirror.cse.iitk.ac.in>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-debuginfo: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-source: mirror.de.leaseweb.net <http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net>
* updates: fedora.iitm.ac.in <http://fedora.iitm.ac.in>
* updates-debuginfo: ftp.kddilabs.jp <http://ftp.kddilabs.jp>
* updates-source: ftp.kddilabs.jp <http://ftp.kddilabs.jp>
rpmfusion-free-updates-debuginfo | 2.7 kB 00:00
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-debuginfo | 2.7 kB 00:00
updates-debuginfo | 3.1 kB 00:00
updates-debuginfo/primary_db | 328 kB 00:02
Skipping filters plugin, no data
0 packages excluded due to repository protections
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
Skipping filters plugin, no data
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mplayer-doc.x86_64 0:1.0-0.126.20110816svn.fc16 will be updated
---> Package mplayer-doc.x86_64 0:1.0-0.128.20110816svn.fc17 will be an update
---> Package npapi-vlc.x86_64 0:1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc16 will be updated
---> Package npapi-vlc.x86_64 0:1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17 will be an update
---> Package python-vlc.noarch 0:1.1.0-2.20100825git.fc14 will be updated
---> Package python-vlc.noarch 0:1.1.0-3.20100825git.fc17 will be an update
---> Package qtractor.x86_64 0:0.5.2-1.fc16 will be updated
---> Package qtractor.x86_64 0:0.5.2-1.fc17 will be an update
---> Package vlc-devel.x86_64 0:1.1.13-3.fc16 will be updated
---> Package vlc-devel.x86_64 0:1.1.13-74.fc16 will be an update
--> Processing Dependency: vlc = 1.1.13 for package: vlc-devel-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package vlc.x86_64 0:1.1.13-74.fc16 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libgoom2.so.0()(64bit) for package: vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libmpcdec.so.6()(64bit) for package: vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libxosd.so.2()(64bit) for package: vlc-1.1.13-74.fc16.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libgoom2.x86_64 0:0-3.fc16 will be installed
---> Package musepack-tools.x86_64 0:sv8-3.svn435.fc16 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libcuefile.so.0()(64bit) for package: musepack-tools-sv8-3.svn435.fc16.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libreplaygain.so.1()(64bit) for package: musepack-tools-sv8-3.svn435.fc16.x86_64
---> Package xosd.x86_64 0:2.2.14-14.fc15 will be installed
--> Running transaction check
---> Package cuetools.x86_64 0:1.4.0-0.7.svn305.fc16 will be installed
---> Package libreplaygain.x86_64 0:0.9.1-0.1.svn453.fc16 will be installed
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
=====================================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
=====================================================================================================
mplayer-doc x86_64 1.0-0.128.20110816svn.fc17 _local 1.5 M
npapi-vlc x86_64 1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17 _local 50 k
python-vlc noarch 1.1.0-3.20100825git.fc17 _local 58 k
qtractor x86_64 0.5.2-1.fc17 _local 1.0 M
vlc-devel x86_64 1.1.13-74.fc16 _local 143 k
cuetools x86_64 1.4.0-0.7.svn305.fc16 _local 56 k
libgoom2 x86_64 0-3.fc16 _local 78 k
libreplaygain x86_64 0.9.1-0.1.svn453.fc16 _local 8.4 k
musepack-tools x86_64 sv8-3.svn435.fc16 _local 108 k
vlc x86_64 1.1.13-74.fc16 _local 9.1 M
xosd x86_64 2.2.14-14.fc15 _local 47 k
Transaction Summary
=====================================================================================================
Install 6 Packages
Upgrade 5 Packages
Total download size: 12 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Setting up and reading Presto delta metadata
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 39 MB/s | 12 MB 00:00
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 8296fa0f: NOKEY
Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not installed
[root at localhost kgtaban]#
How do I proceed regarding the above matter?
Thanks to all Fedora Friends.
-Kaushik
Post by Kaushik Guha
I did uncheck/disable the Fedora "Rawhide" repos
why were they enabled?
this is a road to hell!
Post by Kaushik Guha
What about the "ATrpms" repositories? I've disabled it
earlier...should I enable it?
only if you want to kill yur system over the long
ATrpms is known to replace base-packages with own versions
and sometimes other packaging (sub-packages) as the original
one and sooner or later this will end in massive depsolv
troubles - the only good at ATrpms is that after some time
if you want get rid of the troubles you are learning
how to deal with "rpm -e --nodpes" and what packages
you must not remove and after all that you know all
core packages by her first name (i was there years ago)
you should avoid to enable as much repos as you can find
in case of repos "more helps more" is totally wrong
your current problems are coming from enable things you
are not knowing what they are (rawhide as best example)
rawhide is the devel-tree and currently F17 and was
never designed for machines which should work all the time
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Kaushik,
It would appear that you need to remove at least the npapi-vlc for fc17 (and probably should remove the mplayer-doc, python-vlc,
and qtractor for fc17 packages as well just to get back to cleaner system). Then npapi-vlc won't have to get updated and that
gpgcheck error won't come thru.
Actually, if you are trying to get to a rawhide-free system you may want to do an "rpm -qa | grep fc17" to get a list of the
packages you have installed from rawhide and then remove those (there's nothing inherently wrong with having rawhide packages
installed as long as you know what you are getting into...sometimes those packages have updates that fix issues that you are
having and that will never get back into the FC level you happen to be working in...just make sure you only install what you need
if you are going to "extend" into the rawhide space). Just beware of all of the dependency issues you may run into.
And now, a rant of my own.
If people would get off of their soapboxes and actually help out this list would be a lot more helpful for those that are fairly
new to Fedora and/or are trying to learn and get better at using/administering it. We were all new once and needed help along the
way. Constructive help instead of preaching typically works better at teaching.
Kevin
Kaushik,

I forgot to mention that if you still want to be able to do that update without removing any packages you could try " su -c 'rpm
--import /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-rpmfusion-free-fedora-rawhide-x86_64' " and then try your update again.

KEvin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/e1795258/attachment.html>
Frank Murphy
2012-01-28 15:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
Thank you again Reindl.
Oh! It was a mistake on my part to enable a hell lot of repos. list.
Sorry,to bother you Friend.
What I'm doing now is,whenever any update/upgrade is available,I uncheck
those packages which has ending as "*.fc17" .The rest packages with
updates(*.fc16) are fine in updating.
edit yum.conf
## use whatever if your fasvourite editor, vim ,emacs etc..

add these line
exclude=*fc17* # until such time as you want to go to F17
skip_broken=1 ## to stop some dep errors from breaking update.
Post by Kaushik Guha
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 39
MB/s | 12 MB 00:00
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID
8296fa0f: NOKEY
Public key for npapi-vlc-1.2.0-0.3gitf568362.fc17.x86_64.rpm is not
installed
[root at localhost kgtaban]#
if you get an error like this again no matter what fc16, fc17 etc.
yum update --exclude=npapi-vlc
## do that for any package that is unsigned
That way the signed packages update.

For the unsigned one, tell them on their bz, or mailing list.
Be carefull about installin g them.
--
Regards,

Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
Aaron Konstam
2012-01-28 15:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
I did uncheck/disable the Fedora "Rawhide" repos.,along with all the
"Test Updates" repos. from Fedora using "Apper"(A fantastic Tool).
Since everone else shares the things that bug them let me join the
crowd.

The name of the program from a Fedora point of view is apper nor Apper,
despite what it says in the title of the GUI window that appears.
--
======================================================================= ... the MYSTERIANS are in here with my CORDUROY SOAP DISH!! ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-28 16:11:38 UTC
Permalink
To Aaron Konstan: Well, "apper" is the actual name represented as per
Fedora16,now this user's community gmail space is not for programming as
we all know,I think, typos,lower-upper case letter mixing, doesn't affect
much.Though you are correct that we should be true about information &
facts.

To Frank,Kevin,Reindl,John...Friends: I actually wanted to enable the
repos. list(not all),since I want to *UPGRADE *this distro Fedora16(64-bit)
to Fedora 17(64-bit)(due to launch in May/June 2012)without losing any
files,applications,tools etc. until installed here now.
I *do not intend* for a *CLEAN INSTALL* like Ubuntu distros.
I am a noob you see my Friends,regarding the indepth system of
Fedora,though am familiar with various applications and tools used in
GNU/Linux OS.I always try to learn by seeking your Help-Friends,and never
mind about *"sarcasam"* or *"lectures"* till they remain at a confined *
"positive"* level and does not *cross* the limits.

Thank you all
-Kaushik Guha
Post by Aaron Konstam
Post by Kaushik Guha
I did uncheck/disable the Fedora "Rawhide" repos.,along with all the
"Test Updates" repos. from Fedora using "Apper"(A fantastic Tool).
Since everone else shares the things that bug them let me join the
crowd.
The name of the program from a Fedora point of view is apper nor Apper,
despite what it says in the title of the GUI window that appears.
--
=======================================================================
... the MYSTERIANS are in here with my CORDUROY SOAP DISH!!
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/e51ad21d/attachment-0001.html>
Reindl Harald
2012-01-28 16:21:00 UTC
Permalink
To Frank,Kevin,Reindl,John...Friends: I actually wanted to enable the repos.
list(not all),since I want to *UPGRADE* this distro Fedora16(64-bit) to
Fedora 17(64-bit)(due to launch in May/June 2012) without losing any
files,applications,tools etc. until installed here now.
I *do not intend* for a *CLEAN INSTALL* like Ubuntu distros
but why are you enable them NOW

i also never make a clean install since first day with Fedora
but enable rawhide is the road to hell

Rawhide is DVELOPMENT-TREE and update with yum can be your
samllest rpoblem, if you catch the wrong day your whole
system may not start after updates
I am a noob you see my Friends
well, and that is why you should consider a question to the mailing
list before enable things you do not know exatcly what it does
which makes things easier as after mistake was done :-)





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/1d6b9fc4/attachment.sig>
Frank Murphy
2012-01-28 16:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
To Frank,Kevin,Reindl,John...Friends: I actually wanted to enable the
repos. list(not all),since I want to *UPGRADE *this distro
Fedora16(64-bit) to Fedora 17(64-bit)(due to launch in May/June
2012)without losing any files,applications,tools etc. until installed
here now.
Fot the moment dont,
as Fedora 17 is not stable enough curerently,
with the move to /usr/* currently being tested.
Wait until F17 is branched to upgrade.
Do you use KDE, Gnome, Xfec, Lxde.
or a combination ot them all?
--
Regards,

Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-28 16:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Currently I am at ease with KDE,and I am in it while I write
this.Occasionally I use LXDE also,but GNOME-3.x seems to be uneasy with* me
*at least.
I've stated earlier,that it was my mistake to enable most of the repos. in
the repos list.
I had already disabled all "rawhide" repos and also the "ATrpms" repo in
the list.
In fact I read earlier in the Fedora main site stating,that rawhides are in
development stages for dev. purposes ,releases and testing.
Previously,while enabling the repos,I WAS CAREFUL not to enable rawhide or
testing repos. as such,but due to fault of my lack in concentration while I
was meddling the repos list,I enabled those repos without realising the
consequences.
Sorry, Friends.
Post by Frank Murphy
To Frank,Kevin,Reindl,John...**Friends: I actually wanted to enable the
repos. list(not all),since I want to *UPGRADE *this distro
Fedora16(64-bit) to Fedora 17(64-bit)(due to launch in May/June
2012)without losing any files,applications,tools etc. until installed
here now.
Fot the moment dont,
as Fedora 17 is not stable enough curerently,
with the move to /usr/* currently being tested.
Wait until F17 is branched to upgrade.
Do you use KDE, Gnome, Xfec, Lxde.
or a combination ot them all?
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/users<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/**Mailing_list_guidelines<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines>
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/dcd30963/attachment.html>
Frank Murphy
2012-01-28 16:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
Currently I am at ease with KDE,and I am in it while I write
this.Occasionally I use LXDE also,but GNOME-3.x seems to be uneasy
with*me *at least.
I've stated earlier,that it was my mistake to enable most of the repos.
in the repos list.
I had already disabled all "rawhide" repos and also the "ATrpms" repo in
the list.
In fact I read earlier in the Fedora main site stating,that rawhides are
in development stages for dev. purposes ,releases and testing.
F17 will be branched according to this schedule, excluding slips:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/17/Schedule

It is alos a good idea to join the announce list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/announce
low email count, important stuff ounly.
--
Regards,

Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-28 17:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Thanks,Frank.I followed your advice,and after erasing the*
npapi-vlc*package along with the
*whole of vlc-core package*,system has come to its stability(regarding
updates/upgrades) as it seems.
If I want to freshly install vlc package,shouid I use *YUM* or through *
apper?*
I want the whole libraries,plugins,etc. the full package of vlc.
Post by Kaushik Guha
Currently I am at ease with KDE,and I am in it while I write
this.Occasionally I use LXDE also,but GNOME-3.x seems to be uneasy
with*me *at least.
I've stated earlier,that it was my mistake to enable most of the repos.
in the repos list.
I had already disabled all "rawhide" repos and also the "ATrpms" repo in
the list.
In fact I read earlier in the Fedora main site stating,that rawhides are
in development stages for dev. purposes ,releases and testing.
https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Releases/17/Schedule<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/17/Schedule>
https://lists.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/announce<https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/announce>
low email count, important stuff ounly.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/users<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/**Mailing_list_guidelines<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines>
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120128/7d94d8ad/attachment.html>
Frank Murphy
2012-01-28 17:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Thanks,Frank.I followed your advice,and after erasing the*npapi-vlc*
package along with the *whole of vlc-core package*,system has come to
its stability(regarding updates/upgrades) as it seems.
If I want to freshly install vlc package,shouid I use *YUM* or through
*apper?*
I want the whole libraries,plugins,etc. the full package of vlc.
That's a personal choice.
I like yum because,
I can see what's happening as it happens.
including any problems.
--
Regards,

Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
Paul Allen Newell
2012-01-28 19:11:13 UTC
Permalink
On 1/28/2012 9:02 AM, Kaushik Guha wrote:

[...]

I am getting hit with emails from Google+ about Kaushik Guha adding me
to his circles and requesting that I join Google+. Normally I would
ignore, but given the tendency of this list to lite up on most anything
non-Fedora that comes along, I wanted to post as I haven't seen anything
in this thread.

If this is a legit request (as in Kaushik Guha did do this), please
remove me from "those circles" and do what is necessary to prevent more
emails from coming. If this is not a legit request, then I figure you
ought to know.

Paul
Aaron Konstam
2012-01-28 22:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
To Aaron Konstan: Well, "apper" is the actual name represented as per
Fedora16,now this user's community gmail space is not for programming
as we all know,I think, typos,lower-upper case letter mixing, doesn't
affect much.Though you are correct that we should be true about
information & facts.
I don't want to be a pain about this. But part of this list is designed
to inform thingws about Fedora that they may not know. Linux is case
sensitive so that calling the program Apper adds the confusion of the
list members who are trying to find the function.

Another gotcha of this program comes from the fact that it is a KDE
program. If you try to use the Add and Remove option under Gnome it
tries to remove a program. Can you guess what program it tries to
remove? If you guessed apper you win the prize.
--
=======================================================================
Chicago law prohibits eating in a place that is on fire.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-29 01:53:29 UTC
Permalink
To Mr. Paul Allen Newell: Sir,it was a legit request .But I do honour and
respect people's privacy.Sir,I am removing your name from my Google+ circle
as you suggested on the mail.Also,remember I do not have any malicious
intentions as such.

From
-Kaushik Guha.
Post by Aaron Konstam
Post by Kaushik Guha
To Aaron Konstan: Well, "apper" is the actual name represented as per
Fedora16,now this user's community gmail space is not for programming
as we all know,I think, typos,lower-upper case letter mixing, doesn't
affect much.Though you are correct that we should be true about
information & facts.
I don't want to be a pain about this. But part of this list is designed
to inform thingws about Fedora that they may not know. Linux is case
sensitive so that calling the program Apper adds the confusion of the
list members who are trying to find the function.
Another gotcha of this program comes from the fact that it is a KDE
program. If you try to use the Add and Remove option under Gnome it
tries to remove a program. Can you guess what program it tries to
remove? If you guessed apper you win the prize.
--
=======================================================================
Chicago law prohibits eating in a place that is on fire.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120129/e07d91d4/attachment-0001.html>
Paul Allen Newell
2012-01-29 01:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaushik Guha
To Mr. Paul Allen Newell: Sir,it was a legit request .But I do honour
and respect people's privacy.Sir,I am removing your name from my
Google+ circle as you suggested on the mail.Also,remember I do not
have any malicious intentions as such.
From
-Kaushik Guha.
Thank you for understanding
Kaushik Guha
2012-01-29 04:56:02 UTC
Permalink
My problem is gone.
*I can update/upgrade packages onto my Fedora 16(x86_64) OS at ease.*
I thank all my Friends for their valuable suggestions and advice regarding
configuring(choosing) correctly the repositories from the repos list,and to
erase or deselect certain packages which were providing dependency
problems and errors.

I have read the "Mailing list guidelines", in Fedora Project, and shall
follow the rules as stated there.

Thank you all.Thanks to the Fedora community.
[solved]
--
users mailing list
users at lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120129/930f7757/attachment.html>
Joe Zeff
2012-01-27 19:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reindl Harald
tell someone he should disable gpgcheck is dumb, because you suggest if people
have problems they should do this - WTF do you understand why this exists and
what damage are hapenning if you get a bad core-package on your system which
was only installed because you disabled gpgcheck?
Rpmfusion has been having gpg problems for well over a month. Sometimes
the only way to complete an update is to do *only* the problem packages
with gpgcheck turned off, then to a normal update. It's not good, but
it's a well-known issue and there's an open ticket reporting it at the
rpmfusion bugzilla.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...