On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 10:17 -0700, Craig White wrote: > On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 13:07 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > > I'm just not buying Bill's concept of breaking and never digging > > out. > > > > > That's your choice, I think Tait Clarridge hit the method to downgrade > > first, > > then rerun the upgrade. In another forum (chat room) someone said that > > the yum > > 'clean' had been used, then upgrade succeeded in fixing the system. > > > > Both of those suggestions indicate that "using only the 'upgrade' > > command" isn't > > the way to get things sane again. If it worked for you, fine, but I > > still put > > Tait's suggestion in my tricks folder, seems a robust thing to do, > > rather than > > repeating the unsuccessful upgrade. > ---- > it's about the assumption... > > if a yum clean metadata fixes the issue, then it is not an issue that is > problematic for everyone but only those whose metadata contains a > package list of updates that won't work...it's a local problem. > > I can assure you that neither I nor most have had to 'downgrade' in > order to upgrade. I tried clearing the yum metadata and the problem persisted. I cannot take credit for the downgrade and then update as I saw it on a forum (or maybe even in bugzilla), but on 3 of my Fedora 11 systems (both i386 and x86_64) the clean did not work and only the downgrade and then upgrade worked. > > Craig > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
