Fedora 15 updates broken?

wahming · #1 4th August 2011, 10:18 AM

Yum is unable to access any packages in the F15 updates repository. When I manually download and browse the repo filename list (http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/Linux/Fed...ateinfo.xml.gz) it seems that the files are listed as being available from the Fedora *5* address, which is obviously incorrect. This issue seems to have been going on for a few weeks now.

sea · #2 4th August 2011, 11:28 AM

Try: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=267809

wahming · #3 4th August 2011, 12:10 PM

Doesn't seem very relevant. My issue is, even looking through the xml file manually, I can see that it points to Fedora/updates/5, when it should be pointing to Fedora/updates/15. Far as I can tell, it was working normally a month ago.

mschwendt · #4 4th August 2011, 03:29 PM

Dunno where this break downloads, but indeed the paths are invalid. Also for Fedora 14.

For Fedora 15 i686, the path contains a second error. It says …/5/i686/… instead of …/15/i386/…

I've filed: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4860

**nirik** · #5 4th August 2011, 10:16 PM

This should be fixed in the next push.

It's apparently been broken since f10... so not sure where those paths are used (if at all).

wahming · #6 5th August 2011, 03:46 AM

It's been broken since F10? Really? Dang. My zypper (in a meego hybrid) broke a couple weeks ago, unable to find any updates, so I went browsing and found this, which I thought was the root cause.

**nirik** · #7 5th August 2011, 03:48 AM

yeah. I guess you can see if it's fixed after the next push... seems to have been:
release.name[-1]
instead of
release.name.get_version()

;(

mschwendt · #8 5th August 2011, 10:31 AM

Is the wrong arch (i686 instead of i386) in the path fixed, too?

sea · #9 5th August 2011, 11:58 AM

Some repos / packages do have i686 F15/32bit extensions.
Some older (?) still have i386., but these are more rare.

**nirik** · #10 5th August 2011, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mschwendt

Is the wrong arch (i686 instead of i386) in the path fixed, too?

Not sure. Hopefully so.

sea · #11 5th August 2011, 04:36 PM

Am i wrong or do i misunderstand this issue?

I used to have an 386 33mhz 4mb ram computer back in/around 1995.
Pretty much right 'after' my Commodre 64 with tape storage, for those who remember that time.

So the "386" reminds me to old.
While "686" looks new to me, not wrong.

But, i still dont know where that "86" came from, but hence, its called x86_64 if its 64bit.

bodhi.zazen · #12 5th August 2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sea

But, i still dont know where that "86" came from, but hence, its called x86_64 if its 64bit.

See :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#...ng_conventions

sea · #13 5th August 2011, 06:54 PM

Been there, read that

So, basicly, "i386" is only used by Windows to refer to 32bit software.

Why should the Linux community agree with that, specialy in a bleeding edge community?
x86 vs x86-64 looks more fair to my eyes, refering to the current 'standards', as listed in the above wiki's.

Hence, why not only refer to the archtectures size? name-of-sw-16 / name-of-sw-32 / name-of-sw-64 / name-of-sw-2048 (somewhen in future)?

**nirik** · #14 5th August 2011, 06:56 PM

no, 'i386' is used by lots of places to refer to '32 bit'.

Just think of it that way and move on with life?

sea · #15 5th August 2011, 07:02 PM

Yeah, guess i have to. Its just i havnt seem that term for weeks now, allthough installing plenty of software.

Sorry for the interuption of the bug-fix-related discussion.