Upgrade from F28 to F29 - Page 2
FedoraForum.org - Fedora Support Forums and Community
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 30 of 30
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    248
    Windows NT 10.0 Firefox 61.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    OK. I get that. I do also have Gnome installed and can select either Gnome or Mate at sign in (tho, it's been defaulting into Mate). So, if I signed into Gnome desktop more consistently, would I eventually see the upgrade notice?

    A more important question is about the problem I seem to have....if I go thru terminal and use the CLI for dnf, would being logged into Mate cause the upgrade to not occur? Do I actually need to do the upgrade while logged into Gnome?

    One other note...I am actually using pretty much the server version of Fedora.

    Thx and cheers....

    Quote Originally Posted by antikythera
    Yes, MATE doesn't have GNOME Software which would flag the upgrade availability for Workstation. As far as I recall dnfdragora will not advise of available distribution upgrades

  2. #17
    PabloTwo's Avatar
    PabloTwo is offline "Registered User" T-Shirt Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Seville, FL
    Posts
    7,834
    Linux Chrome 70.0.3538.77

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    Which desktop environment your using would make no difference when using dnf at the command line. Dnf does not depend on any graphical environment at all. Whenever I do my "dnf system-upgrade ......." stuff, I do it from a virtual console, ('sudo systemctl isolate multi-user.target' then login as root) with no gui running at all.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    248
    Windows NT 10.0 Firefox 61.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    I kind of figured that but thought I'd ask anyway. I appreciate your response but it doesn't get me any closer to getting the upgrade issue resolved

    Another thought I had was that I know Fedora 29 is being "rolled out" in the sense that not everyone is getting the upgrade notice (if one is running the Gnome desktop) at the same time to spread out the upgrade activity. I was wondering if, for some reason, I was not yet on that list and somehow that's preventing my system from doing the upgrade. However, I've been able to download to my machine (what seems to be) all the apps (~2.2GB?) for the upgrade so it's on my system and all it has to do is trigger into upgrade mode, which seems to be the problem.

    Just need to figure out why that upgrade-at-reboot function isn't (functioning

    Thx and cheers.....


    Quote Originally Posted by PabloTwo
    Which desktop environment your using would make no difference when using dnf at the command line. Dnf does not depend on any graphical environment at all. Whenever I do my "dnf system-upgrade ......." stuff, I do it from a virtual console, ('sudo systemctl isolate multi-user.target' then login as root) with no gui running at all.

  4. #19
    PabloTwo's Avatar
    PabloTwo is offline "Registered User" T-Shirt Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Seville, FL
    Posts
    7,834
    Linux Chrome 70.0.3538.77

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    Would it be possible that there is any item in your /etc/dnf/dnf.conf file that you put there in the past that would sabotage the upgrade? Though I can't imagine what entry might cause that to happen.

    As long as you are doing, as root in a terminal, in this sequence:
    Code:
    sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever 29
    sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot
    It shouldn't matter whether your do these commands sequentially in the same terminal session or split them into separate sessions. The second command (dnf system-upgrade reboot) should put a "hook" into the systemd stack so that the reboot process hits that hook which then starts installing all of the previously downloaded F29 rpm packages stored in the cache (probably a different cache than the normal dnf upgrade/update cache.

    Note also that the "update" command in dnf is now deprecated and the preferred use is "upgrade", which is not the same thing as "system-upgrade".

    There is no "rolling out list" concerning a new Fedora release. When a new release becomes available, it's immediately available to everyone, regardless of whether some GUI update application is informing you of the availability of it or not. Personally, I stopped using those less than optimal GUI package update programs years ago and only do command line package upgrades and system-upgrades. And since other users have had no trouble doing the F28 > F29 system-upgrade via command line I would think the problem you're having must be unique to your system as I've seen no other threads on the forum from anyone with a like experience.

  5. #20
    PabloTwo's Avatar
    PabloTwo is offline "Registered User" T-Shirt Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Seville, FL
    Posts
    7,834
    Linux Chrome 70.0.3538.77

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    In the possibility you may have a corrupted dnf package (there are several), you might try reinstalling them.
    Code:
     sudo dnf reinstall dnf* libdnf python2-dnf* python3-dnf*
    After doing so, run just the "sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot" command again and cross your fingers.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Que, Canada
    Posts
    5,543
    Linux Firefox 63.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    I started with Fedora in 2006, and at that time, the rule for upgrades was to save /home and redo everything else.
    Around 6 years ago, I created a script into which I wrote the name of the application that I added to Fedora and which I wanted to keep. My script includes entries from "dnf group list" , items from Fedora and rpmfusion.org and some other items that were not from rpmfusion or from Fedora.

    What I like about a clean installation as opposed to an upgrade is a cleaner installation. During the months of Fedora 28 use, I have installed some other software that is sometimes of type "whahh, nothing to keep" or of type "A me too solution that offers llttle new".
    Often, what is installed, due to dependencies, is impossible to remove.

    Thus far, my approach is to install one or two applications listed within anaconda, and post boot, run my script to rebuild the system with my "Must haves". It has been a successful approach since Fedora 25.

    My migration to Fedora 29 will be done likewise. I am testing F29 using a separate disk, and as reported elsewhere, Gnome support for printer selection is broken or incomplete. I also found fault with the "authoring and publishing" group. If you tried installing that grooup with anaconda, the Fedora installer, you will never be able to have a F29 Gnome desktop. Anaconda will crash with no recovery ability.(as of Nov 09,2018)

    Because of the "simplification of Gnome", removing valuable features such as $HOME and Trash icons from the desktop, I have found myself transitioning to KDE. KDE printing and other features, alternate to Gnome just work, and they work fast, and the work well. So, for my F29, it's KDE. Perhaps when Fedora 30 is beta'd, I may switch back to Gnome.

    So, my recommendation is to save /home and information to rebuild your critical applications, do a minimal fresh installation and then run your script to complete your system upgrade.
    Leslie in Montreal

    Interesting web sites list
    http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showth...40#post1697840

  7. #22
    PabloTwo's Avatar
    PabloTwo is offline "Registered User" T-Shirt Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Seville, FL
    Posts
    7,834
    Linux Chrome 70.0.3538.77

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    Quote Originally Posted by PabloTwo
    In the possibility you may have a corrupted dnf package (there are several), you might try reinstalling them.
    And of course, if the problem is a matter of a corrupted rpm package, it could also be a systemd file and not dnf itself.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Que, Canada
    Posts
    5,543
    Linux Firefox 63.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    Quote Originally Posted by PabloTwo
    And of course, if the problem is a matter of a corrupted rpm package, it could also be a systemd file and not dnf itself.
    Bug reports have been written for both issues. For Fedora 28, there was a distrosync that brought the Fedora 27 version of "Authoring and Publishing" to Fedora 28 updates. Eventually, that "Authoring and Publishing" issue will arrive to the F29 repository.
    As for printing, there is no urgency to fix the Flagship Gnome ISO solution. Running man cups provides a clue as to how to do what the Gnome system tool interface omitted to implement. How to to work around Gnome's "system printer installation".

    By the way, have you counted the number of repositories for rpm? Whatever we had for classical Fedora, is doubled, as Modules are separated from applications". dnf or dnfdragora has to read at least 8 repositories to find out if your system needs updating. Modules and regular rpm application repositories need to be merged. Scanning 8 repositories takes much elapsed time. Thereafter software installation proceeds as rapidly as before.
    Leslie in Montreal

    Interesting web sites list
    http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showth...40#post1697840

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    248
    Windows NT 10.0 Firefox 61.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    @PabloTwo

    Thx for the suggestion. Did the dnf reinstall and tried another upgrade....no such luck.

    wrt a systemd file....anything (or any tools) I can do to try and fix that? Also, nice to know that no one else seems to being having the same kind of problem doing the upgrade. Unfortunately, that doesn't help my cause What it does say is it seems to be something specific/unique to my system. So, that pretty much takes care of the question. Now to figure out the answer and the solution.

    @lsatenstein

    I get your point about starting fresh. It would solve a lot of the problems I've been having in trying to upgrade (I expect at some point trying to do this in the normal "organic" manner is going to reach a point of diminishing returns And I'd like to not have to do that...tho, I'm getting close....if you read 1 of my earlier emails, this has been a kind of odd/even experience for me. 1 upgrade goes very smoothly, the next is a flatten/fresh install, then back to smooth. I know it's a complex OS and Murphy demands that what can go wrong will go wrong...but it'd be nice to have a more consistently smoother upgrade transition.

    I might try to upgrade a few more times over the next week or so. If that doesn't work, since I have no urgency to upgrade, I may wait a few months and try again. Or just skip F29 and wait for F30.

    Appreciate the link to the list. Good compendium of resource sites. Thx.

    Thanks to the folks who tried to help. Truly appreciate it

  10. #25
    PabloTwo's Avatar
    PabloTwo is offline "Registered User" T-Shirt Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Seville, FL
    Posts
    7,834
    Linux Chrome 70.0.3538.77

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    wrt a systemd file....anything (or any tools) I can do to try and fix that?
    The rpm command has an option to verify the integrity of an installed package. Any changes to the originally installed package is flagged for any one of 9 possible change types. Some changes are normal and don't indicate a problem (such as editing a *.conf file or journald writing to its own log file).

    You could do a blanket rpm --verify on all your systemd installed packages using:
    Code:
     sudo rpm -V $(rpm -qa | grep systemd)
    The only reason for using sudo on the above is that I found one systemd file could only be read by root. On my working F28, the output of that command looks like this:

    Code:
    $ sudo rpm -V $(rpm -qa | grep systemd)
    .M.......  g /etc/udev/hwdb.bin
    .M.......  c /etc/vconsole.conf
    .M.......  g /var/lib/systemd/random-seed
    .M.......  c /etc/locale.conf
    .M.......  c /etc/machine-id
    S.5....T.  c /etc/systemd/journald.conf
    .M.......  g /var/log/btmp
    .M....G..  g /var/log/journal
    From the rpm man page... the codes for the verify option:
    Code:
           S file Size differs
           M Mode differs (includes permissions and file type)
           5 digest (formerly MD5 sum) differs
           D Device major/minor number mismatch
           L readLink(2) path mismatch
           U User ownership differs
           G Group ownership differs
           T mTime differs
           P caPabilities differ

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    248
    Linux (Fedora) Firefox 63.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    Here's the response to rpm -V.... command was on my machine. Notice anything out of the ordinary? 1 thing I noticed is I show 3 less files than you do...but that may be due simply to system configuration differences. Or, maybe something critical is missing...

    Code:
    .M.......  c /etc/machine-id
    .M.......  g /var/log/btmp
    .M....G..  g /var/log/journal
    .M.......  g /etc/udev/hwdb.bin
    .M.......  g /var/lib/systemd/random-seed
    Quote Originally Posted by PabloTwo
    The rpm command has an option to verify the integrity of an installed package. Any changes to the originally installed package is flagged for any one of 9 possible change types. Some changes are normal and don't indicate a problem (such as editing a *.conf file or journald writing to its own log file).

    You could do a blanket rpm --verify on all your systemd installed packages using:
    Code:
     sudo rpm -V $(rpm -qa | grep systemd)
    The only reason for using sudo on the above is that I found one systemd file could only be read by root. On my working F28, the output of that command looks like this:

    Code:
    $ sudo rpm -V $(rpm -qa | grep systemd)
    .M.......  g /etc/udev/hwdb.bin
    .M.......  c /etc/vconsole.conf
    .M.......  g /var/lib/systemd/random-seed
    .M.......  c /etc/locale.conf
    .M.......  c /etc/machine-id
    S.5....T.  c /etc/systemd/journald.conf
    .M.......  g /var/log/btmp
    .M....G..  g /var/log/journal
    From the rpm man page... the codes for the verify option:
    Code:
           S file Size differs
           M Mode differs (includes permissions and file type)
           5 digest (formerly MD5 sum) differs
           D Device major/minor number mismatch
           L readLink(2) path mismatch
           U User ownership differs
           G Group ownership differs
           T mTime differs
           P caPabilities differ

  12. #27
    PabloTwo's Avatar
    PabloTwo is offline "Registered User" T-Shirt Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Seville, FL
    Posts
    7,834
    Linux Chrome 70.0.3538.77

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    No apparent problem pops up there. That command would have scanned 100's of files from several different systemd rpm packages. Only files with some sort of change from the original would appear in the output. I'm not sure what would cause the (M Mode differs...) flag to various files, but that doesn't seem to be fatal as I'm not having any problems with my system.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    248
    Linux (Fedora) Firefox 63.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    Appreciate the effort, insight and help. Time to go focus on other priorities for awhile.

    Let me know if any other thoughts come to mind. I'll post back if/when I discover something at this end....

    Thx and cheers....

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    935
    Windows NT 10.0 Firefox 63.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    My main fedora workstation started as fedora 20. I used fedup to upgrade to 21,21, and since then I've upgraded using dnf system-upgrade up to the current fedora 28. If it helps, here is the procedure I've followed and never run across any problems other than removing a couple packages here and there to stop dependency issues. I never use the gui updater/installer, I do all package installations and system upgrades from the command line.

    Usually I use putty from a windows computer ssh'd to the target machine, even if I don't need to I like to know I can do a remote upgrade of a system without needing to physically touch the target. In putty I su - to root and then do these steps (it's a single-user (me) server so I reboot a couple more times that absolutely necessary):
    * reboot (just to make sure rebooting is stable, since it's usually been a few weeks since I last rebooted.
    * (reconnect as root): dnf upgrade --refresh (completely update the current system) then reboot again
    * dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=<whatever> --refresh
    * After all is downloaded, usually including a couple prompts to install new gpg keys for the updated repositories, do dnf system-upgrade reboot
    * Go off an have [breakfast|lunch|dinner|snack|beer] and after a suitable length of time (an hour or so), try reconnecting via ssh and see it the machine is alive
    * Tour around the new version briefly to make sure important (to me) stuff seems to be working
    * One last reboot for luck.
    I've had very good luck using these steps. Sometimes one or more updated application needs some tweaking (e.g., run a mediawiki maintenance script to update the mwiki database to a newer version, nothing to do with fedora).

    The only dnf repositories I use are the fedora repos, rpmfusion, google chrome, and I used to use adobe flash adobe repo.
    ======
    Doug G
    ======

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    248
    Windows NT 10.0 Firefox 61.0

    Re: Upgrade from F28 to F29

    @Doug G

    I appreciate your suggestion (and I may try it, but not with much confidence at this point However, it seems that my system is not setting whatever link/flag needed (or ignoring it if it has been set) that switches it into upgrade mode after I've done all the downloading and then issued "sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot". So, my sense is it wouldn't matter if I did this at the console (CLI) or remotely. If it doesn't do the upgrade at reboot, it ain't going to do it.

    I need to figure out why this is happening.

    Thanks for the input, tho.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. [SOLVED]
    Help! Fedora upgrade failed to start. How to abandon upgrade?
    By BuckleSwasher in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20th October 2018, 03:49 AM
  2. System Upgrade (fedup) to FC20 give do not start the upgrade
    By aend4ab in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th March 2014, 03:46 PM
  3. FC19 fedup upgrade to FC20 fails (won't boot System Upgrade)
    By wernermaes in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15th January 2014, 02:21 PM
  4. F16 -> F17 Upgrade. Preupgrade runs fine, but doesn't upgrade.
    By timvdwest in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18th June 2012, 04:14 AM
  5. Upgrade stalls after selecting Grub upgrade option
    By Divit11 in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th May 2012, 04:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •