Mailing List Archive: atrpms: users

FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

lunchtimelarry at gmail

Jul 18, 2009, 5:28 PM

Post #1 of 8 (1149 views)
Permalink

FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice

I have an FC9 myth BE that was built in October of last year. I used atrpms
for all the usual stuff. Knowing that support for FC9 was ending soon, and
a desire to upgrade my nvidia driver (177.80 now), I was noodling on how I
might go about the upgrade with the least amount of disruption (WAF). I was
all set to do a preUpgrade, rather than wipe and start over from scratch.
Doh! It seems that atrpms has just dropped support for FC9 as I was
preparing to do this upgrade. Additionally, when I run a yum update, I get
all kinds of dependency errors:

.
.
.
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
system-config-users-docs-1.0.6-1.fc9.noarch from updates-newkey has
depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: system-config-users >= 1.2.82 is needed by package
system-config-users-docs-1.0.6-1.fc9.noarch (updates-newkey)
gnome-packagekit-0.2.5-2.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: libpackagekit.so.4 is needed by package
gnome-packagekit-0.2.5-2.fc9.i386 (installed)
PackageKit-glib-0.3.12-1.fc9.i386 from updates-newkey has depsolving
problems
--> Missing Dependency: PackageKit = 0.3.12-1.fc9 is needed by package
PackageKit-glib-0.3.12-1.fc9.i386 (updates-newkey)
system-config-date-docs-1.0.5-1.fc9.noarch from updates-newkey has
depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: system-config-date >= 1.9.35 is needed by package
system-config-date-docs-1.0.5-1.fc9.noarch (updates-newkey)
ntp-perl-4.2.4p7-1.fc9.i386 from updates-newkey has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: ntp = 4.2.4p7-1.fc9 is needed by package
ntp-perl-4.2.4p7-1.fc9.i386 (updates-newkey)
firstboot-1.97-1.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: system-config-users is needed by package
firstboot-1.97-1.fc9.i386 (installed)
PackageKit-0.2.5-1.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: libpackagekit.so.4 is needed by package
PackageKit-0.2.5-1.fc9.i386 (installed)
PackageKit-0.2.5-1.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: PackageKit-libs = 0.2.5-1.fc9 is needed by package
PackageKit-0.2.5-1.fc9.i386 (installed)
kdeplasma-addons-4.2.4-1.fc9.i386 from updates-newkey has depsolving
problems
--> Missing Dependency: libplasmaclock.so.4 is needed by package
kdeplasma-addons-4.2.4-1.fc9.i386 (updates-newkey)
PackageKit-0.2.5-1.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: yum-packagekit = 0.2.5-1.fc9 is needed by package
PackageKit-0.2.5-1.fc9.i386 (installed)
kdeplasma-addons-4.2.4-1.fc9.i386 from updates-newkey has depsolving
problems
--> Missing Dependency: libplasma.so.3 is needed by package
kdeplasma-addons-4.2.4-1.fc9.i386 (updates-newkey)
firstboot-1.97-1.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: system-config-date is needed by package
firstboot-1.97-1.fc9.i386 (installed)
mythmusic-0.21-193.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: libmp4ff.so.0 is needed by package
mythmusic-0.21-193.fc9.i386 (installed)
.
.
.

Some of these are obviously related to atrpms not having the packages
anymore (ie, mythmusic), but others I am not so sure the reason. Any ideas?

Give the circumstances, I am wondering what my options are for an in-place
upgrade? Can I successfully use preUpgrade without first doing a yum
update of my FC9 packages? the preUpgrade instructions specifically call
for a yum update prior to the upgrade, but I do not know the ramifications
of not doing this.

If I download and burn, say, the FC11 DVD install disk, does that offer me
any additional options for an in-place upgrade?

Larry

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Jul 19, 2009, 1:56 AM

Post #2 of 8 (1107 views)
Permalink

Re: FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice [In reply to]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 08:28:35PM -0400, Larry K wrote:
> I have an FC9 myth BE that was built in October of last year. I
> used atrpms for all the usual stuff. Knowing that support for FC9
> was ending soon, and a desire to upgrade my nvidia driver (177.80
> now), I was noodling on how I might go about the upgrade with the
> least amount of disruption (WAF). I was all set to do a preUpgrade,
> rather than wipe and start over from scratch. Doh! It seems that
> atrpms has just dropped support for FC9 as I was preparing to do
> this upgrade.

But that doesn't matter, preupgrade just need the target's packages,
e.g. F11's.

> Additionally, when I run a yum update, I get all kinds of dependency
> errors:

> system-config-users-docs-1.0.6-1.fc9.noarch from updates-newkey has
> depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: system-config-users >= 1.2.82 is needed by package
> system-config-users-docs-1.0.6-1.fc9.noarch (updates-newkey)
> [... many more vendor packages ...]
> mythmusic-0.21-193.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: libmp4ff.so.0 is needed by package
> mythmusic-0.21-193.fc9.i386 (installed)

> Some of these are obviously related to atrpms not having the packages
> anymore (ie, mythmusic),

The error says that an *installed* package is missing a dependency,
not a to be installed. This means that the current state of your rpm
database is not in order, e.g. there are real or virtual package
holes.

> but others I am not so sure the reason. Any ideas?

Similar reason, although I wonder why yum doesn't suggest to download
the missing packages. Maybe you disabled some of Fedora's repos?

> Give the circumstances, I am wondering what my options are for an in-place
> upgrade? Can I successfully use preUpgrade without first doing a yum
> update of my FC9 packages? the preUpgrade instructions specifically call
> for a yum update prior to the upgrade, but I do not know the ramifications
> of not doing this.

I used preupgrade on three systems from F10->F11 and all three ended
up with not updating yum/rpm/python requiring me to do rsyncs from a
working system.

> If I download and burn, say, the FC11 DVD install disk, does that offer me
> any additional options for an in-place upgrade?

Yes, that would probably be the easiest approach. You could also try
your way through with yum update with a newer fedora-release
package. That's what I do, when I can't wipe the system clean and
reinstall from scratch.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

lunchtimelarry at gmail

Jul 19, 2009, 7:51 AM

Post #3 of 8 (1102 views)
Permalink

Re: FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice [In reply to]

>
>
> Similar reason, although I wonder why yum doesn't suggest to download
> the missing packages. Maybe you disabled some of Fedora's repos?
>
> Axel,

I wondered if all the repos were working. I have not intentionally disabled
anything.

Here are the initial yum messages. Looks like freshrpms had an issue, but I
assume the mirror worked?

# yum update
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, fedorakmod, kernel-module, kmdl, priorities,
: refresh-packagekit
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
* updates-newkey: www.gtlib.gatech.edu
* fedora: mirror.nyi.net
* updates: www.gtlib.gatech.edu
* freshrpms: ayo.freshrpms.net
updates-newkey | 3.4 kB 00:00
fedora 2.4 kB 00:00
updates | 2.6 kB 00:00
freshrpms | 2.8 kB 00:00
primary.sqlite.bz2 | 119 kB 00:00
http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedora/linux/9/i386/freshrpms/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2:
[Errno -3] Error performing checksum
Trying other mirror.
4325 packages excluded due to repository priority protections
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Jul 19, 2009, 9:21 AM

Post #4 of 8 (1094 views)
Permalink

Re: FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice [In reply to]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:51:22AM -0400, Larry K wrote:
> > Similar reason, although I wonder why yum doesn't suggest to download
> > the missing packages. Maybe you disabled some of Fedora's repos?

> 4325 packages excluded due to repository priority protections

partial/selective repo filtering! Bad! Bad! Bad!

You somehow managed to exclude half of Fedora itself, there is no 3rd
party repo with so many packages.

My advice: Never use filtering, it creates more headaches than it
theoretically solves. Just use a wise combination of repos.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

lunchtimelarry at gmail

Jul 19, 2009, 11:14 AM

Post #5 of 8 (1095 views)
Permalink

Re: FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice [In reply to]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:51:22AM -0400, Larry K wrote:
> > > Similar reason, although I wonder why yum doesn't suggest to download
> > > the missing packages. Maybe you disabled some of Fedora's repos?
>
> > 4325 packages excluded due to repository priority protections
>
> partial/selective repo filtering! Bad! Bad! Bad!
>
> You somehow managed to exclude half of Fedora itself, there is no 3rd
> party repo with so many packages.
>
> My advice: Never use filtering, it creates more headaches than it
> theoretically solves. Just use a wise combination of repos.
> --
> Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
>

Thanks for the reply.

Not sure how that got in there, but now that I have priorities turned off, I
am able to get a clean update. Well, almost. For some reason, freshrpms
reports a checksum error. This has been going on for some time, if I
recall.

[Errno -1] Metadata file does not match checksum

If I disable the freshrpms repo, yum gives me a clean update for download.

lunchtimelarry at gmail

Jul 19, 2009, 5:22 PM

Post #6 of 8 (1101 views)
Permalink

Re: FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice [In reply to]

>
> Not sure how that got in there, but now that I have priorities turned off,
> I am able to get a clean update. Well, almost. For some reason, freshrpms
> reports a checksum error. This has been going on for some time, if I
> recall.
>
> [Errno -1] Metadata file does not match checksum
>
> If I disable the freshrpms repo, yum gives me a clean update for download.
>

Success. After the big 1,200 package update finished, I re-enabled
freshrpms and was able to get a clean update, except for the kmdl
dependencies (nvidia, alsa, etc.). It looks like all I really need to
finish this update is to upgrade from kernel 2.6.26.6-79.fc9.i686 to
2.6.27.24-78.2.53.fc9.i686

Am I correct that even though the FC9 packages are no longer posted at
atrpms, the update will be able to get the atrpm packages it needs? And for
how much longer will this be the case?

Thanks!

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Jul 19, 2009, 10:00 PM

Post #7 of 8 (1093 views)
Permalink

Re: FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice [In reply to]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 08:22:41PM -0400, Larry K wrote:
> Am I correct that even though the FC9 packages are no longer posted at
> atrpms, the update will be able to get the atrpm packages it needs? And for
> how much longer will this be the case?

How should this be the case? If the packages are not available then
the update can't magically access them.

You don't need to have a fully updated F9 to use the preupgrade,
certainly not kernel-wise. But still I recomemnd using the DVD or
simple yum update method. As said I had bad experience with F10->F11
and preupgrade and I assume F9->F11 can only have more problems.

If you use the DVD:

a) upgrade
b) yum install smart fedora-package-config-smart
c) smart update
d) smart check
e) smart fix
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

lunchtimelarry at gmail

Jul 20, 2009, 5:32 AM

Post #8 of 8 (1090 views)
Permalink

Re: FC9 In-Place Upgrade Advice [In reply to]

>
> How should this be the case? If the packages are not available then
> the update can't magically access them.
>

I guess that question sounded silly, but the update seemed to "just know"
that the last supported FC9 kernel on atrpms was 2.6.27.24-78.2.53. At
least, that's the kernel and kmdl pkgs the update was looking for
yesterday. Since I run 2.6.26.6-79 now, and there exists a more recent
kernel 2.6.27.25-78.2.56, and the update wanted specifically the last one I
saw on atrpms, I assumed that maybe there was still something on atrpms,
albeit hidden on the web page. Well, at least that sounded plausible
yesterday.

>
> You don't need to have a fully updated F9 to use the preupgrade,
> certainly not kernel-wise. But still I recomemnd using the DVD or
> simple yum update method. As said I had bad experience with F10->F11
> and preupgrade and I assume F9->F11 can only have more problems.
>
> If you use the DVD:
>
> a) upgrade
> b) yum install smart fedora-package-config-smart
> c) smart update
> d) smart check
> e) smart fix
> --
>

Based on your advice, I will burn an F11 DVD and upgrade using that.

Thanks for all the help!

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads