Beer vs Windows or Why Doesn't PackageKit seem to work properly?

[glennzo]

Now that I have your attention :D there have been hundreds of posts (not that I actually counted them) asking about the Python errors seen when one tries updating with PackageKit, especially when it is first run after a fresh install of Fedora 12. Many of the posts have been answered, others likely referred to those answered posts.

The scenario is that PackageKit crashes or stops and shows a long list of complaints. Not uncommon at all, but not to worry. We suggest that you open a terminal and type
su -c 'yum update'
(single quotes included) and press enter. Enter the root password when prompted and press enter. Watch to see if yum lists many updates and prompts you to continue. Press 'y' when prompted and let yum update your new Fedora 12 OS.

[hephasteus]

64 gulp beer is superior to 32 gulp beer.

[AdamW]

I'd be worrying about this. I hadn't heard about it before, and don't recall it being the case when F12 first came out. We certainly don't want to expect everyone to do a yum update before PackageKit will work. Is there a bug report with useful information about the failure filed somewhere?

[leigh123linux]

I'd be worrying about this. I hadn't heard about it before, and don't recall it being the case when F12 first came out. We certainly don't want to expect everyone to do a yum update before PackageKit will work. Is there a bug report with useful information about the failure filed somewhere?

There has been dozens of posts like this.


http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=240289&highlight=packagekit

[Talonman]

Worked for me... Thanks for the post.

Updated:
abrt.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12 abrt-addon-ccpp.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12 abrt-addon-kerneloops.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12
abrt-addon-python.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12 abrt-desktop.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12 abrt-gui.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12
abrt-libs.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12 abrt-plugin-bugzilla.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12 abrt-plugin-logger.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12
abrt-plugin-runapp.i686 0:1.0.6-1.fc12 binutils.i686 0:2.19.51.0.14-36.fc12 gdb.i686 0:7.0.1-31.fc12
glib2.i686 0:2.22.4-2.fc12 gnome-screensaver.i686 0:2.28.2-1.fc12 gvfs.i686 0:1.4.3-4.fc12
gvfs-archive.i686 0:1.4.3-4.fc12 gvfs-fuse.i686 0:1.4.3-4.fc12 gvfs-gphoto2.i686 0:1.4.3-4.fc12
gvfs-obexftp.i686 0:1.4.3-4.fc12 gvfs-smb.i686 0:1.4.3-4.fc12 hplip-common.i686 0:3.9.8-28.fc12
hplip-libs.i686 0:3.9.8-28.fc12 ibus.i686 0:1.2.0.20100111-2.fc12 ibus-gtk.i686 0:1.2.0.20100111-2.fc12
ibus-libs.i686 0:1.2.0.20100111-2.fc12 kde-settings.noarch 0:4.3-16.1 kdebase-runtime.i686 0:4.3.5-2.fc12
kdebase-runtime-libs.i686 0:4.3.5-2.fc12 kdeedu-marble.i686 0:4.3.5-1.fc12 kdeedu-marble-libs.i686 0:4.3.5-1.fc12
kdegraphics-libs.i686 7:4.3.5-1.fc12 kdelibs.i686 6:4.3.5-2.fc12 kdelibs-common.i686 6:4.3.5-2.fc12
kdelibs-experimental.i686 0:4.3.5-1.fc12 kdepimlibs.i686 0:4.3.5-1.fc12 libsane-hpaio.i686 0:3.9.8-28.fc12
lm_sensors-libs.i686 0:3.1.2-1.fc12 oxygen-icon-theme.noarch 0:4.3.5-1.fc12 pixman.i686 0:0.16.6-1.fc12
poppler.i686 0:0.12.3-8.fc12 poppler-glib.i686 0:0.12.3-8.fc12 poppler-utils.i686 0:0.12.3-8.fc12
strigi-libs.i686 0:0.7.1-1.fc12 transmission-common.i686 0:1.83-2.fc12 transmission-gtk.i686 0:1.83-2.fc12

Complete!
[Talonman@localhost ~]$

[AdamW]

leigh: a bug report is much more useful than posts. I cannot escalate a forum post.

[leigh123linux]

leigh: a bug report is much more useful than posts. I cannot escalate a forum post.

I never suffered from this problem as I only use yum.

I done a quick search, is this helpful?


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553115


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541645

[Demz]

so Basically PackageKit is useless untill they fix this Bug .. i saw problems relating to this in the fedora test list

[AdamW]

PackageKit is already fixed, has been for weeks.

The problem is it's a Catch 22. There's an update to fix the problem that PackageKit can't install any updates. See the problem? :)

That's why you have to do the initial update with yum.

It's quite tricky for us to avoid this happening, because the bug is basically that the version of PK shipped with F12 will fail if the update set includes any package which introduces a new Obsoletes: line, obsoleting a package you have installed. Obviously, sometimes updates *need* to obsolete existing packages, it's quite hard to get around this.

We may try to work around this for the most prominent cases which trigger this bug, but in practice, it's probably going to affect some people till F12 goes EOL. There's nothing we can do to completely prevent it.

[Demz]

i see a fix to the catch22 yum remove PackageKit if one doesnt need GCM its not a problem

[AdamW]

um. that doesn't 'fix' anything. if you don't want to use PK to handle your updates, you'd never see the bug in the first place.

[dd_wizard]

For some reason, I find that bug quite amusing. :p It's going to force some people to use yum, and they may find out they like it. <evil grin>

dd_wizard

[Hlingler]

... the bug is basically that the version of PK shipped with F12 will fail ...
There's nothing we can do to completely prevent it.Sure there is: re-issue the ISO(s) with a fixed PK. I don't see a fundamental difference between this case and the faulty LXDE ISOs, which were pulled and then re-issued (and for which the maintainer is still getting flamed because "The LXDE spin made us look incompetent"[1]).

However, I'm also practical, and realize that this will never happen (though I'm not entirely sure why).

V

[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-February/008090.html

EDIT: Sorry, Glenn: this has obviously taken a wrong turn, and is way off-topic.

[Demz]

all this is gonna do is make people either use yum-CLI more or go to yumex instead. People wont put up with this Bug, users will just look elsewhere

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM CST ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 PM CST ----------

here's what Hughsie said in the test-list about this though There are a few hundred tests that PackageKit runs before any release
(make check) -- these primarily test the code and the "dummy" (fake)
backend for consistency.

It would be very easy (but quite a lot of work) to set up a fake repo
for PackageKit and then test the various yum install / update / remove
combination for consistency.

This would be a great things to add as part of a GSoC or something
similar, it just needs somebody to "own" it.

Richard.

[Fabiana]

Hi everyone.
I've had the the same issue with PackageKit and got it updated with yum. The thing is, after the update I've started having a fair amount of issues, particularly connectivity issue. Right after the yum update and reboot, fedora couldn't find my wireless (I use an Atheros ar2413), Empathy kept giving network errors and so on. Since there was nothing to lose and I really needed my wireless to work, I decided to just reinstall fedora. Right now I'm on my fedora's first load.
I've just installed Fedora 12 a couple of days ago and I'm a newbie Linux user. The update was done on fedora's fist load.
I must say this is quite frustrating. And frankly, a fresh install should not be giving these kinds of error on the very first update.
I'm afraid this problem should be tackled further. The yum thing seems a bit of a workaround the issue - and I believe many new Linux users who are still afraid of the whole cryptic typing sort of thing myself included!) may be scared away by this sort of thing.

That being said, I guess I'd still have had the same connectivity problems should PackageKit worked properly.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. What's your take on the whole thing?

[Demz]

im not 100% sure but i think the wireless issue is a kernel matter not a PackageKit issue though i could well be wrong

[leigh123linux]

Hi everyone.
I've had the the same issue with PackageKit and got it updated with yum. The thing is, after the update I've started having a fair amount of issues, particularly connectivity issue. Right after the yum update and reboot, fedora couldn't find my wireless (I use an Atheros ar2413), Empathy kept giving network errors and so on. Since there was nothing to lose and I really needed my wireless to work, I decided to just reinstall fedora. Right now I'm on my fedora's first load.
I've just installed Fedora 12 a couple of days ago and I'm a newbie Linux user. The update was done on fedora's fist load.
I must say this is quite frustrating. And frankly, a fresh install should not be giving these kinds of error on the very first update.
I'm afraid this problem should be tackled further. The yum thing seems a bit of a workaround the issue - and I believe many new Linux users who are still afraid of the whole cryptic typing sort of thing myself included!) may be scared away by this sort of thing.

That being said, I guess I'd still have had the same connectivity problems should PackageKit worked properly.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. What's your take on the whole thing?


That would probably work better with a 2.6.32 kernel


su
yum --enablerepo=u*g kernel


If the new kernel doesn't work properly you could still use the old kernel.

[chris53]

I have to agree, My install is a new fc13x64 and I have the updater issues too. I follow the threads and try the fixes and haven't had solution yet. I'm not afraid to use the terminal, I do a lot of copy and paste though from the posts here on fixes. I was using suse for a while, but I like fedora much better. I just want it to work so I can use my puter and learn more about linux, besides the updater issue.

[AdamW]

F13 is not affected by the bug discussed in this thread, your issue is something different. At a wild guess it may be the nss-softokn issue - http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=245886 . If not, please start a new thread. thanks!