Fedora Linux Support Community & Resources Center

Go Back   FedoraForum.org > Fedora Resources > Guides & Solutions (No Questions)
FedoraForum Search

Forgot Password? Join Us!

Guides & Solutions (No Questions) Post your guides here (No links to Blogs accepted). You can also append your comments/questions to a guide, but don't start a new thread to ask a question. Use another forum for that.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 7th February 2010, 12:20 AM
glennzo Online
Un-Retired Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Salem, Mass USA
Age: 57
Posts: 14,623
linuxfedorafirefox
Beer vs Windows or Why Doesn't PackageKit seem to work properly?

Now that I have your attention 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
Code:
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.
__________________
Glenn
The Bassinator © ®

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Laptop: Toshiba Satellite / Intel Core 2 Duo 1.73 GHz / 2GB / 160GB / Intel Mobile 945GM/GMS/GME/943/940GML Integrated Graphics
Desktop: BioStar MCP6PB M2+ / AMD Phenom 9750 Quad Core / 4GB / 1TB SATA / 500GB SATA / EVGA GeForce 8400 GS 1GB
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 8th February 2010, 08:45 AM
hephasteus Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 48
Posts: 528
linuxfedorafirefox
64 gulp beer is superior to 32 gulp beer.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10th February 2010, 07:36 PM
AdamW Offline
Fedora QA Community Monkey
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,176
linuxfedorafirefox
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?
__________________
Adam Williamson | awilliam AT redhat DOT com
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10th February 2010, 07:47 PM
leigh123linux Online
Retired Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 22,370
linuxfedorafirefox
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
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/showth...ght=packagekit
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11th February 2010, 02:47 AM
Talonman Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12
windows_7firefox
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 ~]$
__________________
Asus Maximus SE X38 / Q6600@ 3.8GHz (L726B397 stock VID=1.224) / 7 Ultimate x64 /EVGA GTX 295 C=650 S=1512 M=1188 (Graphics)/ EVGA GTX 280 C=756 S=1512 M=1296 (PhysX)/ G.SKILL 8GB (4 x 2GB) SDRAM DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000) / Gateway FPD2485W (1920 x 1200 res) / (2) 150 GB Raptor's RAID-0 / (1) Western Digital Caviar 750 GB / LG GGC-H20L (CD, DVD, HD-DVD, and BlueRay Drive) / WaterKegIII Xtreme / D-TEK FuZion CPU, EVGA Hydro Copper 16 GPU, and EK NB S-MAX Acetal Waterblocks
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11th February 2010, 07:50 PM
AdamW Offline
Fedora QA Community Monkey
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,176
linuxfedorafirefox
leigh: a bug report is much more useful than posts. I cannot escalate a forum post.
__________________
Adam Williamson | awilliam AT redhat DOT com
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11th February 2010, 08:05 PM
leigh123linux Online
Retired Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 22,370
linuxfedorafirefox
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 2nd March 2010, 11:32 PM
Demz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
windows_7firefox
so Basically PackageKit is useless untill they fix this Bug .. i saw problems relating to this in the fedora test list
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 4th March 2010, 12:16 AM
AdamW Offline
Fedora QA Community Monkey
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,176
linuxfedorafirefox
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.
__________________
Adam Williamson | awilliam AT redhat DOT com
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 4th March 2010, 12:51 AM
Demz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
windows_7firefox
i see a fix to the catch22
Code:
yum remove PackageKit
if one doesnt need GCM its not a problem
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 4th March 2010, 01:16 AM
AdamW Offline
Fedora QA Community Monkey
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,176
linuxfedorafirefox
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.
__________________
Adam Williamson | awilliam AT redhat DOT com
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 4th March 2010, 01:33 AM
dd_wizard Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,409
linuxfedorafirefox
For some reason, I find that bug quite amusing. It's going to force some people to use yum, and they may find out they like it. <evil grin>

dd_wizard
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 4th March 2010, 01:45 AM
Hlingler Offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Connellsville, PA, USA
Posts: 11,291
linuxopera
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamW
... 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/piper...ry/008090.html

EDIT: Sorry, Glenn: this has obviously taken a wrong turn, and is way off-topic.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 4th March 2010, 03:35 AM
Demz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
windows_7firefox
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
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 4th March 2010, 09:36 AM
Fabiana Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Finland
Age: 28
Posts: 5
linuxfedorafirefox
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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
beer, packagekit, properly, windows, work

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why doesn't cp work properly? DK-11 Using Fedora 2 29th November 2008 02:10 AM
Sun Java does not work properly in F8 am_i_registered Using Fedora 6 2nd April 2008 08:40 PM
anyone got CSS to work properly? Fittersman Gamers' Lounge 8 11th September 2007 06:02 AM
NEC - DVD+-R/RW ND-6500A does not work properly msuman Hardware & Laptops 0 8th April 2007 02:22 PM
pop-up doesn't work properly jchoi28 Using Fedora 2 5th February 2007 09:10 AM


Current GMT-time: 14:14 (Thursday, 24-07-2014)

TopSubscribe to XML RSS for all Threads in all ForumsFedoraForumDotOrg Archive
logo

All trademarks, and forum posts in this site are property of their respective owner(s).
FedoraForum.org is privately owned and is not directly sponsored by the Fedora Project or Red Hat, Inc.

Privacy Policy | Term of Use | Posting Guidelines | Archive | Contact Us | Founding Members

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

FedoraForum is Powered by RedHat