On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 11:06 -0700, Alan Evans wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > > Craig White wrote: > >>> The F9 repos were recently (in the past week) updated to use sha256 > >>> hashes for the repodata. It's possible that this has caused the > >>> problem, though I am fairly certain that updating from a clean F9 > >>> install was tested before the new hashes were pushed out. > >> ---- > >> I would tend to doubt that. I was pretty much dead in the water with > >> a system that was setup last August and I updated to updates.newkey > >> and after that, Fedora 9 might as well have been EOL because I > >> couldn't update it. I did download and install yum from F10 and it's > >> updating as I write this but most people are never gonna be able to > >> do that. > > > > That's certainly not good. It's not something I tested or had > > anything to do with. I only mentioned the possibility that it might > > be the root of the problem the OP was having as I had seen the change > > being discussed on IRC a week or so ago. I am fairly sure that the > > scenario of a clean F9 install and update was tested, but even so, it > > could easily have missed some ways that things could break. > > > > I did a quick bugzilla search and didn't find any bugs on this. > > Either my bugzilla search was off or there aren't a ton of people > > running into this. Hopefully it gets reported so that it can be > > fixed. > > > > I can't help but wonder if it requires some unlucky timing to hit? > > Otherwise I would think the list would have a lot more folks > > complaining that their Fedora 9 boxes have stopped updating. :/ > > OP here. Just for the record, I tried it again on a VM at work. This > system seemed to have survived it and is now offering to update many > packages. So the problem isn't obviously deterministic. > > Different computer (laptop vs. VMWare) and different original install > medium (old disc labeled "F9-Boot" vs. fresh download of the > Fedora-9-netinstall.i386.iso) are factors that are different. Both > installs were done over the internet from mirrors.kernel.org. > > Curious: the backtrace that I observed at the end of the first update > on the laptop also happened in the VM. I captured the output if it > interests anyone. ---- I would gather that your netinstall actually installed an updated version of yum that can make sense of the newly hashed repodata where the version of yum installed by the original F9 installer disks cannot. You could verify that simply by grepping for yum in /root/install.log on that system versus the one that had the issue. I definitely see the issue but I suspect that the thinking is that F9 is so close to EOL anyway and it probably only affects new installations from year old images. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
