Autofs conflicts with kernel < 2.6.17

[Anne Wilson]

After messing up my install to the point where it was no longer worth 
fighting, I made a new install of Test1 last night and tried to run update.  
It fails with the message that 'autofs conflicts with kernel < 2.6.17' - but 
I had already seen that message and installed the new kernel.  I am running 
2.6.17-1.2439.fc6.

What now?

Anne

[Paul Dickson]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:22:21 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
> After messing up my install to the point where it was no longer worth 
> fighting, I made a new install of Test1 last night and tried to run update.  
> It fails with the message that 'autofs conflicts with kernel < 2.6.17' - but 
> I had already seen that message and installed the new kernel.  I am running 
> 2.6.17-1.2439.fc6.
>
> What now?

Either exclude autofs or erase all kernels before 2.6.17.

-Paul

[Anne Wilson]

On Tuesday 25 July 2006 07:41, Paul Dickson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:22:21 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > After messing up my install to the point where it was no longer worth
> > fighting, I made a new install of Test1 last night and tried to run
> > update. It fails with the message that 'autofs conflicts with kernel <
> > 2.6.17' - but I had already seen that message and installed the new
> > kernel.  I am running 2.6.17-1.2439.fc6.
> >
> > What now?
>
> Either exclude autofs or erase all kernels before 2.6.17.

I removed kernel 2.6.16....

Info told me:

Usually autofs is invoked at system boot  time  with  the
       start  parameter and at shutdown time with the stop parameter.

so removing it didn't seem such a good idea, and I wasn't sure what effect 
there would be if I excluded autofs, which I presume I would have to do in 
every update.

End result?  Zilch.  I still haven't got an update.  This time it is 
dependencies - libgcj.so.7 and libgcjawt.so.7.

Is this likely to be a mirror problem, or something seriously wrong at my end?  
I ask because my system got trashed a few days ago, after an update, and all 
my attempts to put it right got me nowhere.  I haven't managed a successful 
update either on the original system or on this new install since then.

Anne

Anne

[William Hooper]

Anne Wilson wrote:
[snip]
> End result?  Zilch.  I still haven't got an update.  This time it is
> dependencies - libgcj.so.7 and libgcjawt.so.7.

[snip]

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2006-July/msg00610.html

Broken deps for i386
----------------------------------------------------------
    bouncycastle - 1.33-2.i386 requires libgcj.so.7
    eclipse-cdt-sdk - 1:3.1.0-1jpp_7fc.i386 requires eclipse-cdt =
0:3.1.0-1jpp_7fc
    gettext-devel - 0.14.5-3.1.i386 requires libgcj.so.7
    jessie - 1.0.1-3.1.i386 requires libgcj.so.7
    openoffice.org-core - 1:2.0.3-7.5.i386 requires libgcjawt.so.7
    openoffice.org-core - 1:2.0.3-7.5.i386 requires libgcj.so.7

[Anne Wilson]

On Tuesday 25 July 2006 19:20, William Hooper wrote:
> Anne Wilson wrote:
> [snip]
> > End result?  Zilch.  I still haven't got an update.  This time it is
> > dependencies - libgcj.so.7 and libgcjawt.so.7.
>
> [snip]
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2006-July/msg00610.html
> Broken deps for i386
>
> bouncycastle - 1.33-2.i386 requires libgcj.so.7
>    eclipse-cdt-sdk - 1:3.1.0-1jpp_7fc.i386 requires eclipse-cdt =
> 0:3.1.0-1jpp_7fc
>    gettext-devel - 0.14.5-3.1.i386 requires libgcj.so.7
>    jessie - 1.0.1-3.1.i386 requires libgcj.so.7
>    openoffice.org-core - 1:2.0.3-7.5.i386 requires libgcjawt.so.7
>    openoffice.org-core - 1:2.0.3-7.5.i386 requires libgcj.so.7

I missed that.  That's a relief, thanks.  OK - in circumstances like this, do 
you recommend updating batches after a check-update?

Anne