FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-15-2007, 05:55 PM
Beartooth Sciurivore
 
Default F8 yum updates failing

Is it me??

For the last couple of days, on three Fedora 8 machines, "yum
update" invariably gets as far as asking "Is this OK?"; then I tell it
yes, and it starts downloading, mostly if not always with kdepim first.

That reaches 100%, and the errors start, usually beginning with
"Package does not match intended download," followed by a long list of
mirrors with errors number one way or another (lots of 1 and 9), and
ending with several saying "[Errno 9] Requested Range Not Satisfiable,"
and finally one carrying error number 256 : "No more mirrors to try."

--
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Fedora 8; Alpine 0.99999, Pan 0.132; Privoxy 3.0.6;
Dillo 0.8.6, Galeon 2.0.3, Epiphany 2.20, Opera 9.24, Firefox 2.0
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-16-2007, 12:49 AM
"Michael Schwendt"
 
Default F8 yum updates failing

On 15/12/2007, Beartooth Sciurivore wrote:
>
> Is it me??
>
> For the last couple of days, on three Fedora 8 machines, "yum
> update" invariably gets as far as asking "Is this OK?"; then I tell it
> yes, and it starts downloading, mostly if not always with kdepim first.
>
> That reaches 100%, and the errors start, usually beginning with
> "Package does not match intended download," followed by a long list of
> mirrors with errors number one way or another (lots of 1 and 9), and
> ending with several saying "[Errno 9] Requested Range Not Satisfiable,"
> and finally one carrying error number 256 : "No more mirrors to try."

Make use of "yum clean all" (or related options) or delete the
offending package below /var/cache/yum manually.

In either case, something like that should not happen, so it can be
considered a bug in the software or update system.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-16-2007, 02:34 PM
Beartooth Sciurivore
 
Default F8 yum updates failing

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:49:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> Make use of "yum clean all" (or related options) or delete the offending
> package below /var/cache/yum manually.
>
> In either case, something like that should not happen, so it can be
> considered a bug in the software or update system.

Actually, my standard routine is to do "yum clean all," then "rpm
--rebuilddb," then "updatedb," and only then "yum update" each time.

On the theory that I might have forgotten that somehow, I've just
commanded "yum install kdepim" again. It asked my OK to install it and
one dependency (kdepim-libs) -- and did it!

I don't know what means "the offending package below /var/cache/
yum"

I don't know whether today's success with kdepim means that I did
forget the clianup yesterday, or that something has been fixed overnight;
but I'll go try the other things that were removed with kdepim.

--
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Fedora 8; Alpine 0.99999, Pan 0.132; Privoxy 3.0.6;
Dillo 0.8.6, Galeon 2.0.3, Epiphany 2.20, Opera 9.24, Firefox 2.0
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-16-2007, 04:20 PM
"Michael Schwendt"
 
Default F8 yum updates failing

On 16/12/2007, Beartooth Sciurivore <beartooth@swva.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:49:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Make use of "yum clean all" (or related options) or delete the offending
> > package below /var/cache/yum manually.
> >
> > In either case, something like that should not happen, so it can be
> > considered a bug in the software or update system.
>
> Actually, my standard routine is to do "yum clean all," then "rpm
> --rebuilddb," then "updatedb," and only then "yum update" each time.

"updatedb"? It has _nothing_ to do with package management at all. It
is part of the locate database (package "mlocate").

> I don't know what means "the offending package below /var/cache/
> yum"

Then examine the directory structure below /var/cache/yum. For every
repository there is a "packages" directory, which contains the
downloaded packages. Partial/corrupted downloads can cause problems. A
few times before, after initial release packages have been resigned
with a different key, which invalidated old checksums and caused
download problems, too.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-16-2007, 05:25 PM
Beartooth Sciurivore
 
Default F8 yum updates failing

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:20:18 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On 16/12/2007, Beartooth Sciurivore <beartooth@swva.net> wrote:

>> Actually, my standard routine is to do "yum clean all," then
>> "rpm
>> --rebuilddb," then "updatedb," and only then "yum update" each time.
>
> "updatedb"? It has _nothing_ to do with package management at all. It is
> part of the locate database (package "mlocate").

Hmm... Some guru told me, more years ago than I can reckon, that
I ought to do it from time to time. This provides a place I go often that
reminds me to. Does it do any harm?? (I'm looking for mlocate; beagle was
set for /home/btth only, and re-indexing takes quite a while. I'll look
in google and a few linux sites.)

>> I don't know what means "the offending package below
>> /var/cache/
>> yum"
>
> Then examine the directory structure below /var/cache/yum. For every
> repository there is a "packages" directory, which contains the
> downloaded packages. Partial/corrupted downloads can cause problems. A
> few times before, after initial release packages have been resigned with
> a different key, which invalidated old checksums and caused download
> problems, too.

Aha. I think I see now. Thanks!

Unless I goofed royally, all the 'packages' directories, on a
machine I've just done the whole nine yards on, are empty. Nothing to
delete. I trust that's a good thing -- any may not have been true before.

Incidentally, all the other stuff that "yum remove kdepim" took
is now also re-installed.

Many many thanks for your help!
--
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Fedora 8; Alpine 0.99999, Pan 0.132; Privoxy 3.0.6;
Dillo 0.8.6, Galeon 2.0.3, Epiphany 2.20, Opera 9.24, Firefox 2.0
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org