fc6 yum install/update problems ( Solved but still mysterious )
 

It is getting very difficult to update 64-bit FC6 with yum. There is python issue, there is kdeedu.i386 issue and now I have stumbled on this

What good is yum for if you always have to use rpm with --force and --nodpes options ?

I am sorry for this nasty looking post/rant but I am getting fed up with many FC6 problems-

Some one should simply make minimall install with fedora DVD and then start to use yum to install packages/ggroups and see the results.

I believe the errors may be caused by dependency bugs in the updated package. If I were you, I would file a bug report at http://bugzilla.redhat.com and take suggestions from the developers.

markelo,

FC6-x86_64 has numerous problems and was clearly rushed to release.

FC6 is the WORST release of Fedora ever.

I am beginning to agree with you but I thought that atleast updates would be done right.

Anyway I managed to get past the problem by using yum. Here is how I did it.

First
yum remove dbus-x11 and all dependencies.

then
yum install dbus.
yum update would not work and would only give the same erros as before ( why ? ).

Then I can install newest version of dbus-x11.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree. I recently did a clean install of Fedora Core 6 from the DVD.

There were hundreds of updated packages available (obviously, I would expect nothing less when a distro has been out a few months), and it took me about an hour to manually fix all the errors when trying to install the updates (not including download time). This is on x86_64, and the problem was often with i386 packages that were installed as well.

I too feel that Fedore 6 x86_64 was rushed to release. I don't know abut i386. I think that the release should not be made until it is stable on all supported platforms. This is similar to the way the Debian project does things. If the release can not be made stable on a partitcular platform, then it should not be released on that platform. Likewise, updates should only be available when they will install without problems.

--Ian

I only had one update that gave me errors, the FRYSK update for x86_64.
How did I fix it?
Simple, I use the GUI software updater instead of typing my fingers off, I already lost part of an index finger in a log hauling accident, and the GUI gives more info on what goes wrong, the frysk updates gave me similar errors, I un-checked it in the list of updates. The frysk package as it is, causes me no problems, I ask myself "is it a life & death situation?" answer---> NO. So try it again in a month or so, they might have the problem fixed then.
It's kind of like that old cliche, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
I love this Fedora 6, I'm a Mandrake fan (not Mandriva)(well, half & half as the merger was in the proccess when this one was released) and think my Mandrake 10.2 i686 is not "Rock solid" but more like "Diamond solid", but I find myself in this Fedora more often now and slowly improving it to the point I'm about to ask people if there is a more solid mineral/substance to compare this Fedora too.

Well Junior Hacker. If 64-bit FC6 once gets in a state where nothing in my use doesn't behave erratically I will not update. Right now that state looks to be in a galaxy far far away...

But I also like this FC6 very much ( except it doesn't let me play zangband ). It is these small problems that just make things very annoying.

Yeah alright I could do everything what I wanted with 64-bit FC5 but wanted to try new xorg and AIGLX. And pam problems were fixed so there were nice steps forward with FC6. It just these updates seems just jump around a straight path.

OK ALL:
Please do not be offended as I shed a little light on what is the preferred approach in regards to applying updates.

For instance:
This is my approach. When I look at the list of available updates through the GUI software updater, I will highlight an individual package and click on the DETAILS button to see what the update addresses, most often there is not much info in that little window, but there is a blue colored link that takes me to the bug-report web page that tells the story involved with the update.
Lets just say from a hypothetical situation that an update I'm looking at says "This up-date fixes a bug reported where Opera would crash when you plug your Mp3 player into a usb port". Again, this is just a hypothetical situation.
The best way for me to approach the installation of this particular update is to ask myself if I need it, "Do i have Opera? will I ever use or install Opera? do I have a usb mp3 player? and finally: do I need this update, does it apply to my computer's configuration?.
Quite frankly, as I read the reports on updates, I come to realize that it does not affect me, should I install it?. Well I usually opt to install it anyway because HDD space is not an issue if that update is a little larger than it's predecessor, and just incase I do get into the Opera thing, I'll save me the couple minutes that it would take to apply that update in the future when it is actually needed.
But if it gives me conflicting errors (POSSIBLY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE OPERA INSTALLED), than I just ignore it, as I said above, "Why try to fix something that ain't broke".
I'm not about to run down Fedora's team for their massive efforts just because I'm too stupid or lazy, and don't read before flapping my gums. You do not need to apply all updates in the list, generally (to keep your particular setup in tip top shape), you should only apply the updates that "improve" your particular configuration.

Again, pardon me for being blunt, please don't be offended, but the Windows approach will not yeild the same results in a Linux environment.

Normally, updates are only given for packages that you actually have installed. Updates for packages that you do not have will not be reported.

--Ian

You are right and I'm sure you'll agree that I did not need to be told that. The point I'm trying to make is that packages are more or less "generic" and will not always work on every configuration for a couple obvious reasons.

1: Technology in the personal computer industry is rapidly changing and every day there is new hardware introduced and not all of it conforms to set standards. Look at this from a World Wide perspective.

2: When it comes to Linux which is under GPL licence, you are allowed to alter (customize) anything within that system, and trust me, it happens, ask yourself this ---> Should Linux based developers be required to design their operating systems to take into account every possible small configuration change you make in this complex system which can alter third party software behavior, which by the way makes up the majority of the Operating system. Most of the updates relate to third party software not designed by Fedora developers "per-say". And there is big box full of the stuff in the Linux world. So why run them down when just like any other distribution's goal, is to put together the best configuration of the more popular products.
We are not required to accept "Terms of agreement" like in the Windows world whose operating system is tightly controlled, making it hard for you to alter it to the point where their updates produce errors.
Unlike windows, here you have the choice of making your own decisions, don't rely on the developers to make all your decisions in this vast ever changing Linux world. There is a reason most Windows users start playing with Linux, one of those reasons is the need for more control over something they own (possession is nine tenths of the law)(sort of a misleading cliche), subconsciously they (I included) like to have the freedom to try things they can't do in Windows, there are a multitude of reasons, but if you wan't independence you won't get it depending on others to make your decisions, stop, read, and learn instead of bitching because your Linux distro is not "Windows like" and be a part of the solution by reporting bugs. If you were to solve a bug, you would most like dive in hard and boost your self-esteem something fierce because of your accomplishment. The chances of something like that happening in the Windows world is "slim to none" if you're not on payroll. And when you're on a payroll, it's just a job, it becomes boring, and the drive eventually fades. That's what makes this open source world appealing, not being controled.

FC6 64bit rocks!!
 

First of all guys, i want to scream, ***I have no problems with my FC6 64bit in any areas*** :D Ah what a relief

Now that being out of the way, markelo show me the output of 'yum list installed | grep i386'.

Here are my 32-bit packages. First part

And then rest of 32-bit packages

Ok now let's get a little adventurous, shall we? First of, 'yum list installed | avahi'. If you got x86_64 installed here, kick out the unwanted i386. 'yum remove avahi.i386'. This will also remove a lot of unwanted i386 packages. So its a good staring point.

Alright. removing avahi.i386 would also remove 41 other packages including 32-bit firefox which I would like to use sometimes.

Could mention what you are after ? Are some i386 packages bad or what ?

Just for information I am developing both 32-bit and 64-bit software in this machine and always make performance comparisons between compiled applications.