Gnome related errors with Yum

[marcrblevins]

Need to ask, how did mess it up that bad?
If you didn't put any data file on that rig, you could run:

su -
locate .conf | grep /etc

Backup those and fresh install, finally MANUALLY copy/paste those .conf files that are yours.

[marcrblevins]

Can he run "rpm -e *.386"?

[marcrblevins]

Oh gosh, forget my last entry, just ran:

rpm -qa | grep .i386

It scrolls forever.

[marcrblevins]

Ok how about this script?

#!/bin/bash
#set -x

for file in `rpm -qa | grep x86_64`; do
  echo "Processing $file"
  file386=${file/%.x86_64/}.i386
  echo "Processing $file386"
  rpm -e $file386 --nodeps 
done

[vallimar]

Why put so much work into updating GNOME on what's claimed to just be a webserver/fileserver anyways? With packages this screwed up, who knows what else is broken, better to wait 2-2.5 months for F10 and do a fresh install. Gnome hasn't changed that much and parts of it have gotten worse from f8->f9 anyways so not missing out on anything.

[asianguyjt]

@marcrblevins
I have no idea, it was just a normal upgrade and all.
With past upgrades, I've had no problems whatsoever

@vallimar
I wanted to take care of the problems so I can run yum without having to deal with errors

I'm going to start to backup my configuration files and such and just do a clean install because this is getting ridiculous

For future reference, on x86_64 installs, am I supposed to see i386 packages installed on my box?

I still consider myself new with linux although I've been using it for a few years now.
Thanks for putting up with me

[vallimar]

You'll see some i386, only a few on a fresh install, device-mapper bits and some encryption bits, but if you start installing other things, like wine, adobe-flash or ndiswrapper and such, you'll have an i386 implosion on your hands. It's generally okay to have them, the problem I pointed out before was that you appeared to still have fedora 8 packages sitting around on an upgraded f9 install, and that was the source of all your original conflict messages.

I did't look through the whole list to see what all was conflicting before, but if it was just some gnome packages, it should be safe to hit init 3, rip 'em out manually with rpm, then use yum to re-install the updated versions. You should still backup things just in case, but if you don't want to do a full re-install, give it a shot.

[asianguyjt]

I think I should settle for a fresh install since the upgrade got messed up in the first place.

Thanks for all of your input(:

[marcrblevins]

Well, I was hoping if the script work.

[vallimar]

Originally Posted by marcrblevins

Well, I was hoping if the script work.

Well.. you could always try it out on your install to find out.... *grin*

[marcrblevins]

@Vallimar, not really, my rig is 2000/2001 circa Pentium 4 Rambus rig. Very old. No 64 bit there. Waiting for it to choke on its last pin(leg), then I'll upgrade.

[vallimar]

Well, I ran it as a test just echoing the output.. technically it would have worked.

Processing xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.4.99.906-9.fc10.x86_64
Processing xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.4.99.906-9.fc10.i386
rpm -e xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.4.99.906-9.fc10.i386 --nodeps
Processing gtk2-engines-2.15.3-1.fc10.x86_64
Processing gtk2-engines-2.15.3-1.fc10.i386
rpm -e gtk2-engines-2.15.3-1.fc10.i386 --nodeps
Processing plymouth-0.6.0-0.2008.08.22.fc10.x86_64
Processing plymouth-0.6.0-0.2008.08.22.fc10.i386
rpm -e plymouth-0.6.0-0.2008.08.22.fc10.i386 --nodeps

You'd get lots of package not installed errors, but should have nabbed any real ones.

[asianguyjt]

The script did appear to work because yum would fail at updating and crying dependency errors between fc8 and fc9 stuff

I did a fresh install yesterday and everything is working out now (:

[vallimar]

Good to hear it. Upgrades are a chancy business, sometimes they work, othertimes not so much.